Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 286 (MAD)

Anandha Kannan v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

2026-01-28

R.VIJAYAKUMAR

body2026
ORDER : R. VIJAYAKUMAR, J. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of declaration to declare the selection of the second respondent as a dealer for the retail outlet as illegal and for further declaration that the prescription of 35 meters frontage for awarding a retail outlet which is a urban outlet as illegal and contrary to Indian Road Congress Guidelines. The petitioner has further sought for a declaration that the selection of the second respondent is bad in the eye of law and direct the first respondent to award the petitioner, the dealership of the said outlet. (A).Factual Matrix: 2.The first respondent Oil Company had issued an advertisement calling for applications from eligible candidates for awarding dealership of retail outlets of petroleum for various places including the location at Thirukarungudi, Tirunelveli District by an advertisement dated 25.06.2023. As per the said advertisement, the outlet at Thirukarungudi was declared as a regular retail outlet. The advertisement further mentioned that the applicant should possess a land having minimum dimension of 35 meter frontage and 35 meter depth with total area of 1225 sq.m. The petitioner herein had applied for the same on 08.11.2023 under open category and under Group-I category. There were only two applications for the said site. One by the petitioner and other by the second respondent under Group-II category. 3.On being found eligible on the basis of the information provided in the application, the Land Evaluation Committee had visited the site on 02.12.2023 and measured the land offered by the writ petitioner in his presence. The committee had recorded that the petitioner was possessing only 34.6 meters of frontage. The impugned order came to be passed on 13.12.2023 to the effect that the Land Evaluation Committee has found that the land is not meeting the required norms of minimum frontage as per advertisement and therefore, the petitioner's candidature was found to be ineligible. Initially this order was put to challenge. Later, the prayer was amended by incorporating a prayer for a declaration that the prescription of 35 meters frontage for awarding a retail outlet in the urban area is illegal and contrary to the Indian Road Congress Guidelines. A further declaration was sought for to declare the selection of the second respondent as illegal. These amendments were allowed by this Court on 04.12.2025 in WMP(MD).No. 1893 of 2024. A further declaration was sought for to declare the selection of the second respondent as illegal. These amendments were allowed by this Court on 04.12.2025 in WMP(MD).No. 1893 of 2024. 4.When the petitioner has chosen to challenge the notification issued by the first respondent corporation, the entire burden would be upon the writ petitioner to establish whether the notification is in violation of the Indian Road Congress Guidelines or any other statutory provisions or Government Orders. (B).Submissions of the learned counsels appearing on either side: 5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the site located at Thirukarungudi is on State Highways, namely SH177. However, the said town is classified as a town Panchayat and it is an urban local body. When the writ petition was filed with such an averment that it is an urban local body and therefore, the frontage that is required only 20x20 meters, the same has not been disputed in the counter filed by the respondent Corporation. Therefore, it should be found that the subject matter retail outlet is located only in a urban area and not in a rural area. 6.The learned counsel had further submitted that the Indian Road Congress Guidelines would clearly reflect that in case if the land proposed for the outlet is located in State Highways or in urban areas or in regular outlets, 20 meters frontage is enough. The IRC guidelines are only recommendatory and not mandatory. He had further pointed out that the brochure that was published by the respondent Corporation in June 2023 for the selection of dealers for regular and rural retail outlet does not prescribe any minimum frontage. However, only in the impugned advertisement published by the respondent Corporation on 25.06.2023, the minimum frontage of 35m has been prescribed and therefore, it is not backed by any Statutory Provisions or Government Orders or Guidelines. 7.The learned counsel further submitted that the Government of Tamil Nadu has issued G.O.(Ms).No.25, Highways and Minor Ports (HN. 2).Department dated 24.02.2022 wherein the norms have been prescribed for granting No Objection Certificate by the Revenue Officials for setting up petroleum retail outlets. 7.The learned counsel further submitted that the Government of Tamil Nadu has issued G.O.(Ms).No.25, Highways and Minor Ports (HN. 2).Department dated 24.02.2022 wherein the norms have been prescribed for granting No Objection Certificate by the Revenue Officials for setting up petroleum retail outlets. In the Government Order, the size of the plots that is required in a urban area is only 20x20 m. Therefore, it is clear that IRC Guidelines have been superseded by the Order issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu and therefore, the Government Order would prevail. 8.The learned counsel for the petitioner had further submitted that under the same advertisement, two other petrol bunks situated on the same Highways have been advertised and for both those two bunks, the frontage of 35 meter is not available. However, the first respondent Corporation has chosen to award the retail outlet to those bunks. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner alone has been discriminated on the ground that he is not having frontage of 35 meters. 9.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that merely because the petitioner has accepted the advertisement and submitted his application, it does not estop him from challenging the frontage prescribed in the said advertisement on the ground that it is not having any statutory background. He had further contended that when the prescription of 35 meter is not in consonance with either IRC Guidelines or the Government Orders of the Government of Tamil Nadu, the petitioner cannot be estopped from questioning the same, merely because he has applied pursuant to the said advertisement. 10.As a residuary argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is having 34.6 meter of frontage and it could be rounded off to 35 meters, therefore the petitioner would be eligible to considered under Group-I category. The learned counsel had further submitted that the second respondent has been selected only under Group-II category. Only when an eligible candidate is not available under Group-I category, the question of considering an applicant under Group-II category would arise. When the petitioner is fully eligible as per the Statutory Provisions, his application cannot be rejected on erroneous grounds and dealership could be awarded to the second respondent. Hence, he prayed for allowing the writ petition. Only when an eligible candidate is not available under Group-I category, the question of considering an applicant under Group-II category would arise. When the petitioner is fully eligible as per the Statutory Provisions, his application cannot be rejected on erroneous grounds and dealership could be awarded to the second respondent. Hence, he prayed for allowing the writ petition. 11.The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent Corporation submitted that G.O(Ms).No.25 Highways and Minor Ports (HN.2) Department dated 24.02.2022 could govern only the process of granting No Objection Certificate by the revenue officials for setting up of petroleum outlets. Such an NOC has to be obtained by the dealer after he has been chosen by the Oil Company. Therefore, the State Government order has not bearing upon the eligibility criteria required by the Oil Company for the prospective applicant for dealership . 12.The learned counsel for the first respondent had further submitted that the petitioner has accepted 35 meter frontage prescribed in the advertisement and submitted his online application. In his online application, he had specifically mentioned that he is having 35 meters of frontage. Therefore, the petitioner was very well aware of the requirement and therefore, he cannot turn around and contend that such prescription in the advertisement is bad in the eye of law. That apart, as per the brochure, when false claims are being made and later found out, the application is liable to be rejected. In the present case, admittedly the petitioner has made a false claim that he is having 35 meters of frontage in his application. Later during Evaluation, it was found that the petitioner was only having 34.6 meters of frontage. Therefore, the rejection of the application of the petitioner is perfectly legal. 13.The learned counsel for the first respondent had further contended that the guidelines issued by Indian Road Congress do not have any force of law and they are not binding on the oil company. Therefore, if any criteria as prescribed in the notification issued by Oil Corporation, would not get invalidated. He had also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in WP(MD).No.19218 of 2019 batch case, dated 17.10.2019 ( Durairaj Venkatachalam and others Vs. The Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department , Secretariat, Chennai and others) wherein it has been categorically held that IRC Guidelines do not have any statutory force. He had also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in WP(MD).No.19218 of 2019 batch case, dated 17.10.2019 ( Durairaj Venkatachalam and others Vs. The Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department , Secretariat, Chennai and others) wherein it has been categorically held that IRC Guidelines do not have any statutory force. As a residuary submission, he submitted that even assuming that IRC Guidelines have to be followed, the present site in question is on a National Highway and therefore, it is an undivided carriage and hence, the requirement of 35 meter is also in tune the IRC Guidelines. 14.The learned counsel for the first respondent further submitted that the writ petitioner cannot rely upon the other outlets which are located in the State Highways on the ground that they have been awarded with dealership which do not have 35 meters of frontage. The learned counsel further submitted that those petrol stations are having frontage requirement as per advertisement for such sites. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2007) 11 SCC 172 ( Vishal Properties (P) Ltd., Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others) and (2022) 1 S.C.R.577 (R.Muthukumar and Others Vs. The Chairman and Managing Director TANGEDCO & Others) was relied upon to impress upon the Court that there is no equality in illegality and therefore, there cannot be a claim for negative equality. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 15.The learned counsel for the second respondent/selected candidate submitted that he had applied under Group-II category and after being satisfied with all the statutory requirements, his application has been accepted. When the petitioner has been disqualified on the ground that he is not possessing the required frontage and he had made false averments in the application, that would not in any way affect the selection of the second respondent. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 16.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the material records. (C).Discussion: (i).Location of the Site: 17.The site that is offered by the petitioner is admittedly located in the State Highways SH177 and that is reflected in the Land Evaluation Committee report dated 02.12.2023. So there is no dispute whatsoever that the site is located on the State Highways. (ii).Brochure: 18.As per the Advertisement, the type of retail outlet for Thirukarungudi is a regular retail outlet. So there is no dispute whatsoever that the site is located on the State Highways. (ii).Brochure: 18.As per the Advertisement, the type of retail outlet for Thirukarungudi is a regular retail outlet. All the three oil companies have published a brochure for selection of regular and rural retail outlet in June 2023 which is admittedly applicable to the present selection process. Clause-I deals with the identification of location which is extracted as follows: “1.Identification of Locations: Locations for setting up Retail Outlets are identified by the respective oil company based on commercial/minimum volume consideration. Accordingly, Regular and Rural Outlets are setup by Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs) as under: (i).Rural Ros:Locations on highways (National Highway (NH)/State Highway (SH) etc.) and Urban /Semi Urban areas (within Municipal Limits of a City/Town). (ii).Rural Ros: Location in rural areas but not on highways (NH/SH etc,) and outside Municipal Limits of a City/Town. 19.A careful scanning of the above referred clause clearly indicates that a regular retail outlet means, an outlet located on National/State Highways and urban/semi urban areas within municipal limits of the city/town. A rural retail outlet means it is located in a rural area but not on National or State Highways and located outside the municipal limits of the city/town. Therefore, it is clear that even if a site is located in a rural area but on highways, it can be classified only as a regular retail outlet. In the present case, as found supra, the site offered by the writ petitioner is located in the State Highways in SH177 which is a regular retail outlet. 20.Clause-1 of the brochure published by the Oil Company clearly points out that where the site is located on a Highway, it would certainly not fall under the rural category but on the other hand, it falls only under the regular area. Therefore, if the site falls on a Highway, it should be treated as a regular outlet, irrespective of the fact whether it is in an urban or rural area. 21.The next issue that requires our consideration is what is the dimension of land that his required for a regular retail outlet. 22.The brochure published by three Oil Companies in June 2023 does not specify the dimension of the land required for a regular retail outlet or a rural retail outlet. 21.The next issue that requires our consideration is what is the dimension of land that his required for a regular retail outlet. 22.The brochure published by three Oil Companies in June 2023 does not specify the dimension of the land required for a regular retail outlet or a rural retail outlet. However, in the Advertisement published on 25.06.2023, the first respondent Oil Corporation has prescribed the frontage of 35 meter and depth of 35 meters for a regular retail outlet. It is not known from where this prescription has emanated. (iii).IRC Guidelines: 23.The counsel for the writ petitioner as well as the counsel first respondent, have admitted in their written submission that IRC Guidelines are only recommendatory and not mandatory. A Division Bench of this Court in WP(MD).No.19218 of 2019 batch cases dated 17.10.2019 ( Durairaj Venkatachalam and others Vs. The Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department , Fort.St.George, Chennai and others) in Paragraph Nos.41 and 44 has categorically held that IRC Guidelines are only recommendatory in nature and not mandatory. Therefore, this Court has not taken into consideration the dimension of the land that is prescribed under IRC Guidelines. (iv).Central Government norms for National Highways: 24.The Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways had issued a circular on 26.06.2020 touching upon for the norms for granting of permission for construction of access to Fuel Station. Clause-4 of the said Circular deals with the plot size for Fuel Station along with National Highways which is extracted as follows: The above said Circular is applicable only in cases where the site is located on the National Highways. However, in the present case, admittedly the site is located on the State Highways. Therefore, the said Circular is not applicable. Even assuming that the said Circular is applicable, as far as urban stretches are concerned, the required frontage is 30 meters and depth is 30 meters and not 35 meters. (v).State Government norms for State Highways: 25.The learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon G.O.(Ms).No. 25 Highways and Minor Ports (HN.2) Department dated 24.02.2022 wherein the norms have been prescribed by the Government of Tamil Nadu to the revenue officials for granting No Objection Certificate for setting up petroleum retail outlets along the State Highways maintained by the Highways Department. In the said Government Order, the size of the plot should be 35x35 in rural areas and 20x20 in urban or hilly areas. 26.According to the learned counsel for the first respondent, the above said Government Order is only a guideline to the State Revenue Officials and it would not in any way invalidate the eligibility criteria fixed by the Oil Corporation with regard to the dimension of the land. 27.As per the written submission of the first respondent Oil Corporation, after a dealer is chosen by the Oil Company and when he seeks to put up infrastructure, the dealer has to approach the revenue officials seeking NOC. Therefore, it is clear that if the dimension of land prescribed by the Oil Companies in their advertisement or in brochure are in conflict (especially lesser) with the dimension prescribed by the State Government, the State Government would not grant any NOC. Therefore, that would only result in rejection of NOC from the Revenue Officials of the State Government. In case, if the Oil Companies prescribe a frontage of 20x20 and the State Government insists upon 35x35, there is likelihood of conflict which would ultimately result in cancellation of the dealership. 28.Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent that the Government Order would not invalidate the eligibility criteria fixed by the Oil Companies cannot be countenanced. The eligibility criteria fixed by the Oil Company should always be in alignment with the dimension fixed by the State Government with regard to the grant of NOC. This Court has already found that the prescription of 35 m frontage is not found in brochure published by the Company in June 2023. In such circumstances, the land dimension prescribed in the Government Order for grant of NOC for setting of petroleum outlets, cannot be brushed aside. In fact, the said Government Order states that except these modifications, all other provisions relating to IRC guidelines will remain applicable. Therefore, it is clear that the State Government has chosen to follow all the IRC Guidelines except with regard to the required land dimensions which have been customized for the State of Tamil Nadu. 29.As per G.O(Ms).No.25, for any urban category, the prescribed land dimension is 20 meters of frontage and 20 meters of depth. Admittedly, the petitioner is having the said required land dimension. 29.As per G.O(Ms).No.25, for any urban category, the prescribed land dimension is 20 meters of frontage and 20 meters of depth. Admittedly, the petitioner is having the said required land dimension. (vi).Estoppel: 30.It is the further contention of the respondents that the petitioner having accepting the advertisement and submitted his application, cannot turn around and contend that the land dimension prescribed in the application is not valid. 31.As pointed out supra, the land dimension mentioned in the notification dated 25.06.2023, is not backed by any statutory notifications or even the brochure issued by all the three Oil Companies jointly. In such circumstances, the same should be in alignment with the Government Order issued by the State Government, especially when the site offered by the writ petitioner is located on the State Highways. The learned counsel for the first respondent was not able to point out any other statutory rule or notification for prescribing such a land dimension for an regular retail outlet. In such circumstances, when the notification is contrary to the State Government Order and not backed by any other statutory provision or notification, the petitioner would not be estopped from questioning the same. 32.The petitioner has filed WMP(MD).No.28728 of 2025 to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to conduct a physical inspection of two retail outlets which are located in Veeravanallur for which a dealership was granted under the same notification in order to measure the dimensions and submit a detailed report. Those two retail outlets have not been made as parties to the writ petition and therefore, this Court is not inclined to allow the said application. Accordingly, the said application stands dismissed. 33.The petitioner has applied under Group-I category. The second respondent has been selected under Group-II category. When the eligible Group-I candidate is available, the Group-II candidate cannot be considered. That apart, when this Court is of the considered opinion that the notification prescribing 35 meters frontage and 35 meters depth is clearly in violation of G.O(Ms).No.25, Highways and Minor Ports (HN.2) Department, dated 24.02.2022, the notification is liable to be declared as invalid and as a consequence, the selection of the second respondent would be bad in the eye of law. 34.The first respondent Corporation can issue a fresh notification prescribing proper frontage and depth of land dimension which is in alignment with G.O.(Ms).No.25 Highways and Minor Ports (HN.2) Department dated 24.02.2022 and the Circular of the Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways dated 26.06.2020. (D).Conclusion: 35.In view of the above said deliberations, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.