← Library
Madras High CourtWP/7535/2017disposed of

S.Ramesh, S/O.P.G.Selvaraj, v. The General Manager,

2017-09-13Honourable Mr Justice M.Duraiswamy4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 13.09.2017

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY W.P.No.7535 of 2017 S.Ramesh

...Petitioner

v.

1.The General Manager (T.N.S.O) Marketing Division, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Indian Oil No. IV Level 139, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600 034.

2.The Chief Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Marketing Division, Indane Area Office, No.500 Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018.

...Respondents

Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 21.09.2016. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mohanasundararajan For Respondents : Mr.V.Anandha Natarajan

O R D E R

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to dispose of the petitioner's representation, dated 21.09.2016.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the second respondent Corporation invited applications on 21.09.2013 for appointment of LPG Distributorship for various locations in the State of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. The petitioner applied for the LPG Distributorship for Alamelu Managapuram, Vellore District, under the physically handicapped category and also paid the prescribed fee.

3. The second respondent issued a letter, dated 31.05.2016 declaring the petitioner as selected, being the single eligible candidate for the subject LPG Distributorship and further advised the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/-. Immediately, the petitioner took a Demand Draft for a sum of Rs.25,000/- and approached the respondent to submit the Demand Draft. However, the respondent refused to receive the Demand Draft and informed the petitioner that the unregistered lease produced by him was not valid.

4. In these circumstances, the petitioner gave a representation on 21.09.2016 with all the details connected thereto. However, the second respondent has not considered the same yet.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that the second respondent may be directed to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 21.09.2016, and pass orders in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, within a period of six weeks.

6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, without expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the case, I direct the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 21.09.2016 and pass orders in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

M.DURAISWAMY,J.

(svki)

7. With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

13.09.2017 Index : Yes/No svki To 1.The General Manager (T.N.S.O) Marketing Division, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Indian Oil No. IV Level 139, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600 034.

2.The Chief Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Marketing Division, Indane Area Office, No.500 Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018.

W.P.No.7535 of 2017