Disposed

Sri Palukuri Satyanarayana, v. The Deputy Manager, (Retail)

Telangana HC3 Mar 2006WP/11128/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition challenging a letter requiring No Objection-cum-Indemnity documents for reconstituting a family wholesale kerosene dealer firm with Indian Oil Corporation. The court disposed of the petition by directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's request within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's request for reconstitution of the firm within two weeks.

Sri Palukuri Satyanarayana, Vs The Deputy Manager… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2006)

¶1

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.11128 of 2003

¶3

Dated:03.03.2006

¶4

Between:

¶5

Sri Palakuri Satyanarayana, S/o.Late Ramana Rao.

¶6

..... PETITIONER

¶7

AND

¶8

The Deputy Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited,

¶9

Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam, and another.

¶10

.....RESPONDENTS

¶11

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO

¶12

WRIT PETITION No.11128 of 2003

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

M/s.Palukuri Mallepuvvu & Sons, a partnership Firm, was wholesale Kerosene dealer of Indian Oil Corporation. The Firm was started by one Bhairava Murthy, the uncle of the petitioner herein. After his death, the petitioner approached the respondents seeking permission for reconstitution of the Firm. By impugned letter, dated 20.04.2003, the petitioner was asked to furnish the No Objection-cumIndemnity letter from the legal heirs of Late Sri Palukuri Bhairava Murthy, and get the signatures of the legal heirs of Bhairava Murthy in the presence of the Field Officer of Visakha Divisional Office of the Indian Oil Corporation. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶15

When the writ petition is pending, the petitioner has come forward with another miscellaneous petition, being W.P.M.P.No.34812 of 2005, seeking a direction to the respondents to pass orders in favour of the petitioner for reconstitution of M/s.Palukuri Mallepuvvu & Sons.

¶16

The matter is heard finally. The petitioner’s Counsel submits that the petitioner has already complied with the two objections raised in the impugned letter, and therefore, the respondents may consider the request for reconstitution of the Firm.

¶17

The Writ Petition is therefore, disposed of, directing the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner for reconstitution of M/s.Palukuri Mallepuvvu & Sons, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any further requirements are to be fulfilled, liberty is given to the petitioner to fulfill the same. No costs.

¶18

(V.V.S.RAO, J)

¶19

03.03.2006

¶20

Sri Palukuri Satyanarayana, v. The Deputy Manager, (Retail)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Palukuri Satyanarayana, v. The Deputy Manager, (Retail)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sh. Mohd Mujtaba Ahmed Alvi , Laddoo Vs Special Director, Enforcement Directorate

M/s Renewable Energy Systems Limited, Vs Union of India represented by the Secretary

Sri Sanjay Gupta, Vs Deputy Director of Enforcement

The Gram Panchayat, Kuntloor rep by Vs the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District

Venigalla Krishna Murthy, Vs Vijayawada-Guntur-Tenali-Mangalagiri Urban Development

G.Venkatesh, Vs The Andhra Bank, rep by its Authorised Officer