(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 2 herein to grant an LPG distributorship at Sankarankovil Town of Tenkasi District or grant a viable retail outlet on the concept that the PH Women Dealer is only a non-exclusive dealer - that is to say she is not meant for retail outlet of Kurumbur all one morefully by considering her representation dated 01.02.2026 within the time stipulated by this Hon’ble Court and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.)

1. The Writ Petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to grant an LPG distributorship at Sankarankovil Town, Tenkasi District, or, in the alternative, to grant a viable Retail Outlet on the premise that the petitioner, being a Physically Handicapped Woman Dealer, is only a nonexclusive dealer and, therefore, need not necessarily be confined to the Retail Outlet at Kurumbur, by considering her representation dated 01.02.2026.

2. The petitioner was operating a Petroleum Retail Outlet, namely, “Ramco Agency”, from 08.04.2006 pursuant to an application submitted by her on 26.02.2004. On 10.01.2005, the petitioner was appointed as a Retail Dealer Operator of the Petroleum Outlet under the Physically Handicapped Woman Category. The said appointment was also confirmed by letter dated 31.10.2019, with effect from 25.04.2007. Under the said Letter of Appointment, the petitioner was required not only to take the land on lease but also to develop a Retail Outlet thereon.

3. It appears that a Writ Petition had earlier been filed by one S.Pooma Devi before this Court in W.P.(MD)No.1541 of 2005 [S.Pooma Devi v. The Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Madurai and another], seeking to direct the first respondent therein to consider her qualification for the allotment of retail outlet of the petroleum product in Kurumbur location at Tuticorin District. This Court, vide order dated 06.04.2006, dismissed the said Writ Petition with costs. Though neither the learned counsel for the petitioner nor the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents was able to furnish the particulars of the said proceedings, it appears that the same had resulted in a delay in the commencement of the Petroleum Outlet allotted to the petitioner. Thereafter, on 23.03.2006, a Conditional Letter of Appointment was issued to the petitioner.

4. In the aforesaid background, a Dealership Agreement dated 25.04.2007 was executed by the petitioner in her capacity as the Proprietrix of M/s.Ramco Agencies.

5. The said Agreement specifically recorded that the respondent was the owner/lessee/tenant/licensee of a plot of land and the owner/lessee/tenant/licensee of the superstructures standing thereon, as described in the Schedule to the Agreement. The Agreement was to remain in force for a period of 15 years from 08.04.2006 and thereafter, to continue for successive periods of one year each, unless determined by either party by giving three months’ notice, subject to the other terms contained therein. Upon expiry of the notice period, the Agreement was to stand cancelled and revoked. There are several other stipulations contained in the said Agreement which are not relevant for the disposal of the present Writ Petition.

6. The 15-year period under the aforesaid Dealership Agreement dated 25.04.2007 would have expired on 07.04.2021. However, even prior to the expiry of the said period, the respondent appears to have encountered difficulties in renewing the lease of the land on which the petitioner was operating the Petroleum Retail Outlet. This resulted in the petitioner being unable to comply with the minimum requirements stipulated under the Agreement.

7. According to the petitioner, on 18.10.2019, the owner of the land, namely, T.Murugesa Pandian, informed the Assistant Manager of the petitioner’s Retail Outlet on 29.07.2019 at about 7.00 p.m. that he had issued a legal notice to the Divisional Office of the respondent at Madurai seeking return of the land, as the lease was due to expire in December 2019. The request made by the petitioner’s Assistant Manager for extension of the lease, according to the petitioner, did not yield any fruitful result.

8. In the circumstances, the petitioner appears to have requested that she may be accommodated at any other Company-Owned Company-Operated Pump under the Madurai Division, particularly, at the nearest Company-Owned Company-Operated Pump at Vannikonendal, Tirunelveli District. According to the petitioner, the said location is also situated on the State Highway connecting Tirunelveli and Sankarankovil, in the same manner as the Kurumbur Retail Outlet is situated on the State Highway connecting Tirunelveli and Tiruchendur. The petitioner, therefore, requested that she may be suitably compensated.

9. In this background, on 31.10.2019, the Divisional Retail Sales Manager of the respondent Corporation requested the petitioner to make alternative arrangements for re-siting the Retail Outlet. It is, thus, evident that the petitioner was called upon to identify an alternative site for continuation of the Retail Outlet at her own cost. The contents of the letter dated 31.10.2019 are extracted hereunder:

                  

10. The petitioner contends that, in the circumstances, she was effectively forced out of the Retail Outlet dealership by the then Divisional Retail Sales Manager of the respondent Corporation.

11. The petitioner also signed the Minutes of Meeting dated 07.09.2020, pursuant to which, the Retail Outlet was taken over by Nityanand Rajapandian Nadar and Saravanan Soundarapandian Nadar, as Incoming Partners, in the presence of the Assistant Manager [Retail Sales], Thoothukudi Retail Sales Area, Manager [Retail Sales], Madurai Divisional Office, and Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Madurai Divisional Office. The petitioner signed the said Minutes of Meeting as an Outgoing Proprietrix. The relevant portion of the Minutes of Meeting dated 07.09.2020, is extracted hereunder:

                  

12. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner also executed an Indemnity Letter and handed over the same to the Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager of the respondent Corporation on 08.09.2020.

13. However, on 29.12.2020, in response to the petitioner’s representations dated 26.10.2020 and 08.12.2020, the Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager of the respondent Corporation appears to have made the following admission:

                   “4. Regarding our letter dated 31.10.2019, as already clarified in our earlier letter dated 19.11.2020, it was only a precautionary measure taken to ensure continuity of the RO operation in the worst-case scenario of IOC losing the legal rights over the land. Though the letter was given to you as a matter of abundant precaution, Corporation continued it efforts to get the land lease renewed and negotiation process of renewal was started with the land owners on 20.09.2019 and initial negotiation was conducted with them on 28.11.2019, which is continuing even now. Hence, there was no question of cancellation of NOC or Explosive Licence. The Retail Outlet is operating on the same land even today with valid NOC and PESO licence.

                   5. Your claim of transfer of Dealership based on strong advise of IOCL officer has been taken up with Mr.Jayakumar, who has categorically informed us that he has spoken to your representative (a male member) over telephone only once, to ascertain the grievance submitted by you and neither during that telephonic conversation nor at any point of time he has given any assurance of granting a LPG distributorship in lieu of RO. Since no policy exists for allotting a LPG agency in lieu of RO dealership, no officer of IOCL can give any such assurances.”

14. Thus, according to the petitioner, she was effectively excluded from the business by taking advantage of the expiry of the lease in respect of the land on which the Retail Outlet was being operated, even though the Retail Outlet had originally been allotted to her under the Physically Handicapped Woman Category. It further appears that the same Retail Outlet has thereafter been permitted to be operated by the aforesaid two persons.

15. It is, in this background, the petitioner has been repeatedly submitting representations to the respondents seeking redressal of her grievance and requesting that she may be granted, at least, an LPG Distributorship at Sankarankovil under the Physically Handicapped Woman Category. The first such request appears to have been made by the petitioner on 26.12.2023.

16. The grievance of the petitioner, therefore, is that, having been allotted a Retail Outlet under the Physically Handicapped Woman Category, she was subsequently deprived of the benefit of the dealership on account of the expiry of the lease of the land by the lessor. The petitioner has also alleged that she was compelled/coerced to hand over the business to the aforesaid two persons.

17. The question that arises for consideration is, whether the petitioner is entitled to rehabilitation in the form of an LPG Distributorship under the same category, namely, the Physically Handicapped Woman Category.

18. There are, however, no materials placed before this Court to establish that such a category or rehabilitation scheme exists in respect of LPG Distributorships. In the absence of any statutory provision, policy, scheme or other material demonstrating the existence of such a category, this Court cannot issue a positive direction to the respondents to create or allot an LPG Distributorship to the petitioner under such a category by way of a Writ of Mandamus.

19. At the same time, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, the petitioner’s long association with the Retail Outlet and the circumstances in which she ceased to operate the same, this Court is of the view that some interim monetary relief can be granted, without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to pursue an appropriate remedy in respect of any claim for damages.

20. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) to the petitioner as interim compensation, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

21. It is made clear that the aforesaid payment shall be made without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and shall not preclude the petitioner from working out her remedy for damages before the competent Civil Court or by way of arbitration, in accordance with law.

22. The question as to whether the petitioner is entitled to any further compensation or damages is left open to be determined by the competent Civil Court or in appropriate arbitral proceedings.

23. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner’s request for allotment of LPG distributorship, in accordance with law.

24. With the above observations and liberty, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.