← Library
Madras High CourtWP/23655/2025disposed of

J.Jayachandran v. Indian Oil Corporation

2025-07-01Honourable Mr Justice N. Anand Venkatesh6 pages

1/6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 01-07-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH J.Jayachandran Petitioner(s) Vs

1. Indian Oil Corporation Rep. By Its Chief Generation Manager (LPG-S) Tamil Nadu State Office, 139, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam Road, Chennai-600 034.

2.The Chief Controller Of Explosives, Petroleum And Explosives Safety Organisation, A-Block, CGO Complex, 5th Floor, Seminary Hills Nagpur, Maharashtra-40001 3.The Joint Controller Of Explosives, South Circle, A and D Wings, Block-18 Shastribhavan, No.26, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006.

Respondent(s)

2/6 PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd and 3rd respondent herein to take action against the 1st respondent for insisting upon Indane LPG Distributor to stock the LPG cylinder over and above the licence capacity based on the 1st respondent daily stock report issued to the Indane LPG Distributor in all over India at the relevant point of representation / complaint of the petitioner dated 4.2.2023 and to strictly implement PESO Norms. For Petitioner(s):

Ms.J.Divya For Respondent:

Mr.Mohammed Fayaz Ali for R1 Mr.V.Ashok Kumar Senior Panel Counsel for R2 and R3

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed for issue of writ of mandamus directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to take action against the 1st respondent for harassing the petitioner who was a erstwhile LPG Distributor by considering the representation made by the petitioner on 04.02.2023.

3/6 2.Heard Ms.J.Divya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr.Mohammed Fayaz Ali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent and Mr.V.Ashok Kumar, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 2 and 2.

3.The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation submitted that the complaint given by the petitioner has been considered and it was found that the petitioner is not even an existing distributor and there is absolutely no cause of action for the petitioner to give such a complaint at this point of time.

4.It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Standing Counsel that the 2nd and 3rd respondents are merely licensing authorities and they have absolutely no control over the 1st respondent.

4/6 5.In the considered view of this Court, the present writ petition is completely misconceived. There seems to be some problem between the petitioner and some officials belonging to the Indian Oil Corporation and the personal problem is sought to be exaggerated as if the entire Corporation is working against the petitioner. In any case, the 2nd and 3rd respondents are not the authorities who have the control over the 1st respondent, since they are merely the licensing authorities. Therefore, the relief as sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted by this Court.

6.In the result, this writ petition stands dismissed. No Costs. 01-07-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes ssr

5/6 To 1.Chief Generation Manager (LPG-S) Indian Oil Corporation Tamil Nadu State Office, 139, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam Road, Chennai-600 034.

2.The Chief Controller Of Explosives, Petroleum And Explosives Safety Organisation, A-Block, CGO Complex, 5th Floor, Seminary Hills Nagpur, Maharashtra-40001 3.The Joint Controller Of Explosives, South Circle, A and D Wings, Block-18 Shastribhavan, No.26, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006.

6/6 N.ANAND VENKATESH J.

ssr 01-07-2025