T.Jeeva Ramesh vs The General manager

Court
Madras High Court

WA(MD) No. 1725 of 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.
__________
Page  1  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:32:20 pm )

WA(MD) No. 1725 of 2026
For Petitioner(s) :Mr.J.Anandkumar
for .R.Shanmuganathan
For Respondent(s) :M.Sridher For R1 And R2
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.
__________
Page  2  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:32:20 pm )

WA(MD) No. 1725 of 2026
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
__________
Page  3  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:32:20 pm )

WA(MD) No. 1725 of 2026
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.
__________
Page  4  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:32:20 pm )

WA(MD) No. 1725 of 2026
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.
__________
Page  5  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:32:20 pm )

WA(MD) No. 1725 of 2026
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
__________
Page  6  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:32:20 pm )

WA(MD) No. 1725 of 2026
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
AND
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
AM
WA(MD) No. 1725 of 2026
28-10-2026
__________
Page  7  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:32:20 pm )