Arun Prasath v. The Divisional Manager

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.03.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR and WMP(MD) Nos.3910 and 3911 of 2024 Arun Prasath ... Petitioner vs.

The Divisional Manager Indian Oil Corporation Ltd Madurai Divisional Office 2, Race Course Road Chokkikulam Madurai 625 002 ... Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the respondents relating to the impugned order dated 10.02.2024 in Ref No.IOC16974604983026 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and in consequence, thereof declare the candidative of the petitioner as eligible for allotment of retail outlet dealership at Jothilnaickanur, Usilampatti, Madurai District. For Petitioner :Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian For Respondent :Mr.K.Muraleedharan 1/4

ORDER

The petitioner challenges the communication dated 10.02.2024 issued by the respondent.

2. By the said communication, the petitioner's application for allotment of a petroleum retail outlet was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had not produced documents to substantiate that he was the owner or a lessee of the land on which the petroleum retail outlet was proposed to be established.

3. The petitioner had submitted an application for allotment of a petroleum retail outlet stating that an agreement of sale had been executed in his favour in respect of the land where he intended to establish the outlet. As per the conditions stipulated in the advertisement, the applicant should either own the land in his name or be a registered lessee of the land for a period of 15 years as on the date of the advertisement. In the present case, the petitioner was only an agreement holder and was neither the absolute owner of the land nor a registered lessee for a period of 15 years. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had 2/4

subsequently produced a document to show that he had taken the land on lease for a period of 20 years, the said lease deed was executed subsequent to the publication of the advertisement and, therefore, as on the date of the advertisement, the petitioner was not a lessee of the land.

4. In such circumstances, the rejection of the petitioner's application for allotment of a petroleum retail outlet cannot be said to be illegal. It was also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petroleum retail outlet has subsequently been allotted to a third party.

5. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

Index :Yes / No 04.03.2026 Internet :Yes / No NCC :Yes / No mm 3/4

HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.

mm 04.03.2026 4/4