Disposed

Chakka Suryanarayana v. Union of India

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Jul 2024WP/2198/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposes of a writ petition seeking Mandamus for the return of leased property by petroleum retailers after license revocation. The Court declined to examine merits, relying on a prior related order, and directed the respondents to pass final closure orders after hearing the petitioners within three months.

What did the court decide?

The Court directed respondent authorities to pass final orders on the show cause notice (P/SC/AP/14/1777) regarding closing down of retail outlets, after hearing, and communicate the decision within t

Chakka Suryanarayana Vs Union of India — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

i
|

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 2198 OF 2024

¶9

Between:

¶10

Chakka Suryanarayana, S/o Late Sri Sripammurthy, Hindu, Age 74 Years, Occ Business, R/o Door No. 4-13-33, Main Road, Tuni - 533 401, Kakinada District

¶11

Chakka Sri Ramachandra Murthy, S/o Late Sri Srirammurthy, Hindu, Age 69 Years, Occ Business, R/o Door No. 4-3-9, Narayana Raju Gari Street, Tuni - 533 401, Kakinada District

¶12

Chakka Parvathi Parameswara Rao, S/o Late Sri Srirammurthy, Hindu, Age 68 Years, Occ Business, R/o Door No. 5-17-13/2, Red Convent Street, Tuni - 533 401, Kakinada District

¶13

Chakka Mallikarjuna, S/o Sri Srirammurthy, Hindu, Age 63 Yoars, Occ Business, R/o Door No. 5-17-15, Red Convent Street, Tuni - 533 401, Kakinada District

¶14

Chakka Satyanarayana Murthy, S/o Sri Srirammurthy, Hindu, Age 62 Years, Occ Business, R/o Door No. 4-6-2, Eeranki Vari Veedhi, Tuni - 533 401, Kakinada District

¶15

Chakka Srinivas, S/o Late Sri Srirammurthy, Hindu, Age 57 Years, Occ Business, R/o Door No. 6-7-1/5, Baiaji Road, Tuni - 533 401, Kakinada District

¶16

Chakka Nagamani, W/o Late Sri Perraju Hindu, Age 70 Years, Occ House Wife, R/o Door No. 4-13-38, Main Road, Tuni - 533 401, Kakinada District

¶17

¶18

Chakka Sudhakar, S/o Late Sri Perraju, Hindu, Age 49 Years, Occ Business, R/o Door No. 5-17-11/3, Red Convent Street, Tuni - 533 401, Kakinada District

¶19

Chakka Venkata Naga Raghuram, S/o Late Sri Perraju, Hindu, Age 42 Years, Occ Business, R/o Door No. 4-13-38, Raghurama Complex. Tuni - 533 401, Kakinada District

¶20

...PETITIONERS

¶21

AND

¶22

Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Sastry Bhavan, Dr. Rajender Prasad Road, New Delhi - 110 001,

¶23

Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL), Bharath Bhavan, 4 and 6 Curriambhoy Road, Ballad Estate, Post Box No. 688, MUMBAI -400 001, rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director

¶24

The Territory Manager, Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Visakha Territory (Retail), P.B.No. 213, Near Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam - 530014.

¶25

The Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization(PESO), Room No.602, CGO Towers, Kavadiguda, Secunderabad-500008

¶26

The Dy. Chief Controller of Explosives, Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization (PESO), Door No. 7-20-13, Kirlampudi Layout, Visakhapatnam - 530 017

¶27

...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in not handing over the vacant physical possession of the property of an extent of 1,152 Sq.Yards equivalent to 962.6Q Sq. Mtrs. in Sy.No. 11-1 of Balighattam Village within the municipal limits of Narsipatnam Town, Ankapalle District, even after the expiry of the lease

¶28

¶29

after revoking their explosive license by the 4^*"^respondent period and even as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 herein to vacate and hand over the property of^{thepetitionersofan} extent of 1,152 Sq.Yards equivalent to 962.60 Sq. Mtrs.^{inSy.No.11-1of} the municipal limits of Narsipatnam Town, Balighattam Viliage within Ankapalle District forthwith.

¶30

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶31

Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fiied in support^{ofthewritpetition,the} High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents^{2and3hereintohand} extent of 1,152 over vacant possession of the petitioners property of an Sq.Yards equivalent to 962.60 Sq. Mtrs. in Sy.No. 11-1 of Balighattam limits of Narsipatnam, Ankapalle District Village within the municipal forthwith, pending disposal of the present Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI N. SIVA REDDY

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: M/s. M. LIMA DEVI^(CENTRALGOVT

¶33

COUNSEL)

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI S.V.S.S.SIVA^RAM Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5: — The Court made the following: ORDER

¶35

APHC010030702024

¶36

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶37

[3329]

¶38

TUESDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶39

PRESENT

¶40

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶41

WRIT PETITION NO: 2198/2024

¶42

Between:

¶43

Chakka Suryanarayana and Others ...PETITIONER(S)

¶44

AND

¶45

Union Of India and Others

¶46

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶47

Counsel for the Petltioner(S):

¶48

1.N SIVA REDDY

¶49

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶50

1.M UMA DEVI (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)

¶51

2.S.V.S.S.SIVA RAM

¶52

The Court made the following:

¶53

ORDER:-

¶54

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226^{oftheConstitutionof}

¶55

India, seeking the following relief:

¶56

to issue a writ or order, orders or directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not handing^overthe vacant physical possession of the property of an extent^of1,152 Sq. Yards equivalent to 962.60 Sq.Mirs. in Sy. No.^11-1 of

¶57

4:^

¶58

Balighattam Village within the municipal limits of Narsipatnam Town, Ankapaiie District, even after the expiry of the lease period and even after revoking their explosive license by the 4 th Respondent as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and conseguently direct the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein to vacate and^hand over the property of the petitioners of an extent of 1,152 Sq. No. 11-1 of Balighattam Village within the municipal^limitsof Narsipatnam Town, Ankapaiie District forthwith and pass such other order or orders...”

¶59

^ When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 10.05.2023 passed by this^{CourtinWritPetition} No. 11567 of 2022, The same is not disputed by learned^counsel for the Respondents.

¶60

In view of the same, for the reasons alike in the aforesaid order, this Court, in the interest of justice, deems it appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition and the Respondent-authorities are hereby directed to pass final orders on the show cause notice bearing No.P/SC/AP/14/1777(P3676 9), dated 07.07.2023 with regard to closing down of the^{retailoutletsituatedat} Sy.No.11-1 of Balighattam Village within the Municipal limits of Narsipatnam Town, Anakapalli District, after providing opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and concerned parties and communicate the same to the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶61

•at**:

¶62

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There^{shallbenoorderas} to costs 5. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending,^{ifanyinthewrit} petition, shall also stand closed.

¶63

The Registry is directed to enclose a copy of the order^{inW.P.No.11567} of 2022, dated 10.05.2023 to this order.

¶64

SDI- B. CHITTI JOSEPH assistantaREGIstr;^

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural^{Gas,UnionofIndia,} Sastry Bhavan, Dr. Rajender Prasad Road, New Delhi - 110 001,

¶69

The Chairman and Managing Director, Bharath Petroleum^Corporation Ltd. (BPCL), BharathBhavan, 4 and 6 Curriambhoy Road, Ballad Estate, Post Box No. 688, MUMBAI -400 001.

¶70

Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Visakha

¶71

1. The Territory Manager, Territory (Retail), P.B.No. 213, Near Naval Dockyard,^{Visakhapatnam-} 530 014.

¶72

The Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, Petroleum^{andExplosives} Room No.602, CGO Towers, Kavadiguda,

¶73

Safety Organization(PESO) Secunderabad-500008

¶74

The Dy. Chief Controller of Explosives, Petroleum^{andExplosives} Safety Organization (PESO), Door No. 7-20-13, Kiriampudi^Layout, Visakhapatnam - 530 017

¶75

One CC to Sri N. Siva Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

¶76

One CC to M/s. M. Uma Devi (Central Govt. Counsel)^[OPUC]

¶77

One CC to Sri S.V.S.S. Siva Ram, Advocate[OPUC]

¶78

Three CD Copies.

¶79

W.P.No.11567 of 2022, dated

¶80

(Along with a copy of the order in 10.05.2023 to this order)

ssb

the HON'BLE SRI

JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶85

PCTTTTnN NO.11367 OF 2022

¶86

ORDER:

¶87

is filed seeking the following relief: The present Writ Petition is of the respondents 4 to 7 in allowing the '....declaring the action the retail outlet situated at respondents 2 and 3 herein to run in the Municipal limits of Narsipatnam, Sy.No.11-1 of Baiigattam in . violation of the Visakhapatnam District as illegal arbitrary and in provi^on of Peb-oleun, Act, 1934 and the Rules there under and conseguentiy direa the respondents the said retail outlet by herein to take steps to dose down notice bearing No. passing final orders on the show cause issued to the 3^ p/SC/AP/14/4001(P34281) Dated 26.11-2021 respondent forthwith...."

¶88

Heard Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner , Sri .2 8l 3 and Smt Datla SVSS Siva Ram , learned counsel for respondent nos .4 to 6 and learned Counsel representing respondent nos Divya, learned Civil Supplies representing respondent no.7. Government Pleader for submitted that, basing on the 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner respondent-Deputy Chief complaint given by the petitioner, the 6 nd notice against retail outlet of the 2 Controller of Explosives have issued a orders have been passed. He mrther submitted respondent but so far no that, it would suffice if a^{directionisgiventothe6“’respondenttopass}

¶89

notice and accordingly the issuance of show cause final orders pursuant to consider the writ petition. prayed to the respondents and 4. TO the said submission, iearned counsel for Civil Supplies reported no objection. learned Government Pleader for above submissions into^{considerationandwithoutgoing} 5. Taking the of this Writ is inclined to dispose into merits of this case, this Court is Petition with the following direction: directed to pass final orders The respondent-authorities are hereby No.P/SC/AP/14/4001(P34281) dated 4lbn the show cause notice bearing retail outlet situated at closing down of the 26.11.2021 with regard to limits of Narsipatnam, in the Municipal Sy.No.11-1 of Baligattam of being heard to the District, after providing opportunity Visakhapatnam to the and communicate the same and concerned parties petitioner the date of receipt of period of eight(08) weeks from petitioner within a copy of this order. Acrordingiy, the writ petition is disposed of. Mo costs,

¶90

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any. Shall stand dosed.

iUiTOERAVTcHiiM^PATI

10.05.2023, BRS

HIGH COURT

DATED:09/07/2024

ORDER

WP.No.2198 of 2024

DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS

Chakka Suryanarayana v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chakka Suryanarayana v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kurakula Naga Satyam Vs M.Krishnababu

Sreedhar Engineering Works Vs Sri Shashi Bhushan Kumar(lAS)

M/s. Jagans College of Engineering and Technology, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vatsavaya Subhadra Rani Vs the Union of India

T.V. Sridevi Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Sri Nallaparaju Suseela Vs Union of India