Gomathi v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited

W.P.(MD)No.9008 of 2020 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.09.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.9008 of 2020 and W.M.P.(MD)No.8233 of 2020 Gomathi ... Petitioner Vs.

Indian Oil Corporation Limited Rep. by it's the Chief Area Manager, Indane Area Office, "Triveni" II Floor, B-35, Shastri, Thillai Nagar, Trichy-620 018.

... Respondent Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the respondent vide his Ref: TAO/MP 2017-18/One line Draw/VANNADU/Cancellation, dated 20.10.2018 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent to award LPG Distributorship at Vannadu to me. For Petitioner :

Mr.K.Arunraj For Respondent :

Mr.K.Muraleedharan Standing Counsel

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent corporation.

2.The respondent corporation issued a notification in March 2018 calling for application of awarding LPG Distributorship in various locations. The petitioner had applied for distributorship under Durgam Kshetriya Vitrak (DKV) for the petition mentioned location. The petitioner turned out to be a single candidate. But during field verification, the respondent found that the petitioner was not eligible. Therefore, the impugned rejection order dated 20.10.2018 was issued to the petitioner. The same is under question in the writ petition.

3.The writ petition is liable to be dismissed for two reasons. The rejection order was passed way back in October 2018. It is being challenged after a gap of almost two years. There is absolutely no explanation whatsoever for the delay. A litigant, who approaches the Court belatedly, can be non-suited even on that sole https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

W.P.(MD)No.9008 of 2020 ground. In the case on hand, there is yet another for dismissing the writ petition.

4.The learned Standing Counsel informs the Court that the Corporation had dropped the proposal in respect of the petition mentioned location and there is no proposal to award it to any other candidate.

5. Thus according to the learned Standing Counsel, the matter has become infructuous. I sustain the said objection of the learned Standing Counsel. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) sji Note:In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned. W.P.(MD)No.9008 of 2020 and W.M.P.(MD)No.8233 of 2020 23.09.2020 SCR(CO) AP(06/10/2020) 2P 1C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2