Chandrakumar P v. The Chairman And Managing Director,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN P.Chandrakumar ... Petitioner Vs.

1 The Chairman and Managing Director, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Bharat Bhavan, 4 and 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400 001, Maharastra.

2.The Executive Director (Retail), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Maker Towers E and F, 12th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400 005, Maharastra.

3.The State Head (I and C) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., AMM Coimbatore, 19/2, Big Bazaar Street, Coimbatore - 641 001.

4.The Head of Territory Office, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., T.M.Retail, B.G.Good Shed Road, Thacha Nallur, Tirunelveli-627 358.

1/4

5.Lakshmi R P ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 4th Respondent to conduct proper enquiry regarding the allegations leveled against the 5th Respondent by considering Petitioner's complaint dated 06.09.2022 and representation dated 12.08.2025 and consequently direct the 4th Respondent to prioritize petitioner's application in Application No.15455503211475 dated 23.12.2018, in accordance with law, within time stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Balamurugapandi For Respondents : Mr.S.Natesh Raaja for R1 to R4

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned standing counsel for BPCL. Issuance notice to the fifth respondent is dispensed with.

2.The writ petitioner as well as the fifth respondent were applicants for getting allotment of the petition mentioned dealership. 2/4

The writ petitioner was unsuccessful. Allotment had been issued in favour of the fifth respondent. The petitioner has given a complaint against the fifth respondent and he wants the same to be enquired into. 3.When fifth respondent had already been chosen, the remedy open to the petitioner is to challenge the said allotment on whatever grounds that are available in law. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not been served with a copy of the allotment letter. 4.The learned standing counsel for BPCL states that he would serve a true copy of the allotment of dealership made in favour of the fifth respondent shortly. It is open to the petitioner to challenge the same in manner known to law.

5.This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. 04.09.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias 3/4

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

ias 04.09.2025 4/4