Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 725 (MAD)

Sundaram Agencies rep. By its Manager Rm. Sivasamy v. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Secretary to Govt. Co-operation, Food & Consumer Protection Department Fort St. George, Chennai

2012-02-10

R.SUDHAKAR

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The above writ petition is filed for issuance of writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 to 5 from permitting the 6th respondent to carry on business as wholesale dealer of kerosene at Kumbakonam without a proper licence and from allotting quantities in excess of 250 kiloletres of kerosene to the 6th respondent in accordance with the circular of the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum, dated 22.7.1987 bearing Ref.D.O.No.P-19014/54/84-IOC and consequently to allot the petitioner the maximum monthly allotment of 250 kilolitres. 2. The petitioner claiming to be a wholesale dealer of kerosene at Kumbakionam has a grievance that the sixth respondent is being unduly favoured by the respondents 1 to 5 and the 6th respondent is carrying on his business without any licence / storage facilities at Kumbakonam. In this regard, the petitioner seems to have made a representation on 9.9.2002 to the respondents 2 to 5. By order dated 11.10.2002 direction has already been issued by this court to the second respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation dated 9.9.2002 on merits. 3. In view of the factual dispute raised by the petitioner as against the sixth respondent, and taking note of detailed representation dated 9.9.2002 made by the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to pass any orders except to direct the official respondents 2 to 5, more particularly, the second respondent to consider the said representation, if not already disposed of, and pass appropriate orders on its own merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that this court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case or the merits of the representation of the petitioner. 4. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.