AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner has filed this writ petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondents 1 and 2 from permitting the third respondent from installing, commissioning or operating the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation retail outlet at Keerapalayam, South Arcot Vallalar District.
The second respondent called for the applications by advertisement dated 28.4.93 for the dealership of the Hindustan Petroleum Retail Outlet in the places Nagercoil, Bhuvanagiri and Madhavaram. The subject-matter of this writ petition is Bhuvanagiri within the revenue District of South Arcot.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the third respondent applied for the dealership for locating the retail outlet at Bhuvanagiri as per the said advertisement. But the place of location was suddenly changed and the outlet had been located in Keerapalayam Village which is about two kilometres away. As the advertisement calling for the applications specified the place of location of the outlet as Bhuvanagiri, the first respondent is entitled to have their outlet for their dealers only within Bhuvanagiri town or village, as the case may be and they cannot shift the place of location. If the place of location had been notified as Keerapalayam, the petitioner would have also applied for the dealership. Sine the outlet had been located outside the notified place, the respondents 1 and 2 should be restrained from permitting the third respondent to locate the outlet at Keerapalayam.
The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 contended that Bhuvanagiri is a Town Panchayat; even though in the advertisement the outlet had been mentioned as Bhuvanagiri, the second respondent made a recommendation that the outlet can be situated at Keerapalayam, since the outlet is an earmarked one for the highway. In Bhuvanagiri, no suitable place is available within the limits and as such the outlet can be situated at Keerapalayam which falls within Bhuvanagiri revenue jurisdiction as well as police limits. The distance between Bhuvanagiri and Keerapalayam also is not much and only two kilometres and by this shifting no prejudice will be caused either to the respondents 1 and 2 or to the third respondent who is the selected candidate by the Board. In view of the recommendation of the second respondent, the outlet was installed at Keerapalayam village and the same is functioning from 16.3.94. Since the outlet is functioning for the past more than seven years, the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted, as the same had become infructuous.
The learned counsel for the third respondent adopted the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2.
The only contention of Mr. R. Balasubramanian, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the notification it has been mentioned that the outlet will be located at Bhuvanagiri; whereas now the outlet had been installed at Keerapalayam, which is contrary to the notification and as such the respondents should be directed to locate the outlet within the notified area.
He also relied upon the unreported judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of K. Ramanathan v. R. Xavier, W.A.Nos.407 & 408 of 1990 dated 10.4.1990. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is with regard to the shifting of the outlet. In the above case, originally the outlet was installed at Akkaripettai in Tanjore District. Subsequently the outlet was shifted to Nagapattinam because of the non-viability of the business. The learned Judges held that such shifting cannot be permitted.
In the case on hand, the third respondent never installed the outlet at Bhuvanagiri. Before ever the installation work commences, the authorities took a decision that the outlet can be situated or located at Keerapalayam village which is hardly two kilometres away from Bhuvanagiri. It is also not disputed that Keerapalayam village falls within Bhuvanagiri revenue jurisdiction as well as police limits. When that be so, it is for the petitioner to establish as to how he was aggrieved by the location of the outlet at Keerapalayam.
One more pertinent aspect is that the petitioner is not a contesting applicant. When he has failed to apply for the dealership, he cannot be considered to be an aggrieved person. Further the respondents 1 and 2 have given the reasons for locating the outlet at Keerapalayam, since the outlet falls within highway category and within Bhuvanagiri area abutting the highway no suitable place is available.
Further it has to be seen that the change of location is not at the instance of the selected dealer, the third respondent. Only if the change of location is at the instance of the third respondent, the selected dealer, then the petitioner may have some case, because the third respondent cannot be permitted to locate the outlet in a place other than the one for which he applied for.
But taking into the overall circumstances, the authorities themselves have decided to change the place and the outlet is functioning for the past nearly 3 1/2 years. At this stage, it may not be proper to interfere with the location of the outlet of the third respondent at the instance of the petitioner. Hence the petitioner has not made out any case for interference.
Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently W.M.P.4957 and 4958 of 1995 are closed.