Madras High CourtWP(MD)/20032/2017disposed of

E.Manikandan v. The General Manager(Lpg/Tnso

2017-11-01Honourable Mr Justice R. Mahadevan2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.11.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN W.P(MD) No.20032 of 2017 E.Manikandan ... Petitioner -vs1. The General Manager (LPG) / TNSO, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Marketing Division, Southern Region, Indian Oil Bhawan, 139, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai-34.

2. The Senior Area Manager, Trichy Area Office, Indian Oil Corporation, Marketing Division, Indane Area Office, Triveni 2nd Floor, B-35, Shastri Road, Thillai Nagar, Trichy - 620 018.

3. J.Samundeeswari ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent 1 & 2 to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner dated 16.09.2017 and pass appropriate orders regarding cancellation of distributorship awarded to the 3rd respondent in respect of the location, namely, Aravakurichi location, Karur District within a time frame fixed by this Honble court. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Saravanan For R1 & R2 : Mr.K.Muraleedharan *****

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed, seeking a direction to the respondent 1 & 2 to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner dated 16.09.2017 and pass appropriate orders regarding cancellation of distributorship awarded to the 3rd respondent in respect of the location, namely, Aravakurichi location, Karur District.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. Mr.K.Muraleedharan, learned counsel takes notice for R1 & R2. Notice to R3 is dispensed with, as no adverse order is going to be passed against her in this petition. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner and the 3rd respondent competed for LPG Dealership and finally, the 3rd respondent was selected for LPG Distributorship. The petitioner, on obtaining a copy of the application of R3 under RTI Act, came to know that no registered lease deed was available in favour of R3 that is against the terms and conditions of the Corporation and therefore, he preferred an appeal dated 16.09.2017 to the 1st respondent to cancel the LPG Distributorship awarded to R3. Though a copy of the appeal has been forwarded to the 2nd respondent by R1 for suitable action, no order has been passed on it till now and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 would submit that if a reasonable time is granted to the respondents 1 & 2, the appeal filed by the petitioner will be considered and suitable orders passed in a time bound manner.

5. In view of the above submission, this Court, without going into the merits of the matter, directs the respondents 1 & 2 to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner dated 16.09.2017 and pass necessary orders thereon on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other interested parties.

6. With the above direction, this petition is disposed of. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-I) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar + 1 cc TO Mr.B.Saravanan , Advocate in SR No. 84849 + 1 cc TO Mr.K.Muraleedharan , Advocate in SR No. 85304 ar AE/MR KKR/SAR2/16.11.2017/2P/3C W.P(MD) No.20032 of 2017 01.11.2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/