Madras High Court
WA(MD)/1725/2026 of T.Jeeva Ramesh Vs The General manager on 28 October 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN
WA(MD) No. 1725 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD010407612026}
and
C.M.P(MD)No.14709 of 2026
T.Jeeva Ramesh
S/o. Thirunavukkarasu,
290/59, Velar Street,
Kollangudi,
Alagapuri Post,
Sivagangai District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The General manager
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation,
South Zone Office,
Thalamuthu Natarajan Maligai,
4th floor, Gandhi Irvin Salai,
Egmore, Chennai.
2. The Head of Regional Office,
HPCL, Madurai Retail RO,
1st floor, BSNL CMTS Bhavan, 70 feet Road, Ellis Nagar, Madurai.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters patent, praying to prefer this Memorandum of Grounds of Writ Appeal against the judgment dated 19.01.2026 in W.P.(MD).No.13763 of 2024 passed by this Court.
For Petitioner(s)
:Mr.J.Anandkumar
for .R.Shanmuganathan
For Respondent(s)
:M.Sridher For R1 And R2
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.Velmurugan J.) The present writ appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.13763 of 2024.
2. The appellant applied for the Retail Outlet Dealership of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL), pursuant to the advertisement dated 28.06.2023, and was provisionally considered the sole eligible applicant under Group-I. The appellant remitted the prescribed Initial Security Deposit of Rs.50,000/- and submitted the requisite documents. However, by proceedings dated 17.06.2024, the second respondent rejected the appellant’s application on the ground that the land offered by him did not satisfy the minimum frontage requirement of 35 metres.
3. The appellant contends that the proposed site comprises land belonging to his father, having a frontage of 28 metres, and the adjacent land belonging to one Mr. Anandan Pillai, having a frontage of 8 metres, thereby providing an aggregate frontage of 36 metres. According to the appellant, the proposed site satisfies the prescribed frontage requirement, and the Land Evaluation Committee erroneously rejected his candidature without properly considering the combined frontage of the two parcels of land. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the appellant filed the writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 19.01.2026, holding that the appellant’s candidature had to be considered only under the category for which he had applied.
4. The appellant further submits that he had paid the prescribed Initial Security Deposit of Rs.50,000/- and complied with the documentary requirements. He contends that the rejection of his candidature on technical grounds, without properly considering the consent affidavits and the combined frontage of the proposed site, is arbitrary and unjustified. He also relies upon the sale deed dated 19.07.2024 and the settlement deed dated 01.08.2024 in support of his claim over the property. According to him, no other eligible candidate is available for the subject location. The appellant further submits that the learned Single Judge failed to properly consider the applicability of G.O.Ms.No.25 dated 24.02.2022 and the decision of this Court in W.P. (MD) No.559 of 2024, dated 28.01.2026, concerning the frontage requirements for regular retail outlets. On these grounds, he seeks to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and allow the writ appeal.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the affidavit furnished by the appellant’s father in respect of Survey Nos.107/3 and 107/4 establishes a combined frontage of only 29 metres and not the required 35 metres. It is further submitted that the appellant had enclosed another affidavit in Appendix-III furnished by a third party in respect of Survey No.107/2. According to the respondents, if the appellant intended to rely upon land belonging to a third party, he ought to have applied under Group-II and not Group-I. Since the appellant did not satisfy the minimum frontage requirement under the category in which he applied, the rejection of his candidature was justified. The respondents, therefore, submit that the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition and that no interference is warranted in the present appeal.
6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7. The principal issue for consideration is whether the appellant satisfied the prescribed minimum frontage requirement of 35 metres in accordance with the terms and conditions of the advertisement and whether the land belonging to a third party could be taken into account for determining his eligibility under Group-I.
8. The appellant applied under Group-I but failed to meet the required land frontage criteria. The adjoining land belonging to a third party could not be counted without proof that the guidelines permitted it. Provisional eligibility, payment of the security deposit, and submission of documents did not give the appellant an automatic right to the dealership. The absence of other eligible candidates also did not change this position.
9. In view of the foregoing reasons, we find no illegality or infirmity in the order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. Consequently, the writ appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD) No.13763 of 2024, dated 19.01.2026, is confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. However, the appellant is at liberty to file a fresh application. If any such application is filed, the respondents may consider the same and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. (P.V.,J.) (K.K.R.K.,J.) 28-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No AM
P.VELMURUGAN, J. AND K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J. AM WA(MD) No. 1725 of 2026 28-10-2026