Disposed

C.Mahesh v. Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited

Telangana HC23 Nov 2011WP/22451/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the non-appointment as an LPG gas distributor due to a cancelled residence certificate. The Court disposed of the petition by directing the third respondent to pass appropriate orders expeditiously on the pending residence certificate matter, noting that the dealership notification had been withdrawn by the first respondent.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the third respondent to pass appropriate orders expeditiously on the petitioner's application for residence certificate.

C.Mahesh Vs Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶2

WP NO. 22451 OF 2010

¶3

Date of Judgment: 23.11.2011

Between:

C. Mahesh

…Petitioner

and

Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited and others

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶11

WP NO. 22451 OF 2010

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

Heard both sides.

¶14

The petitioner had applied for appointment as Distributor to LPG gas agencies under Rajiv Gandhi Grameena LPG Vitharak Distributor (RGGLV) for the location notified at Sl.No. 39, reserved for SC category, in

¶15

response to the notification dated 30.3.2010. The petitioner claims that he was short listed for such appointment, but on the ground that his residence certificate was cancelled by the Mandal Revenue Officer, his selection was put on hold. The petitioner also states that the Mandal Revenue Officer had sent a fax communication to the first respondent regarding the cancellation of the residence certificate against which the petitioner had filed a detailed representation before the District Revenue Officer/Collector, Kurnool with a request to direct the Mandal Revenue Officer to conduct inquiry, examine and take action on his representation. The endorsement of the District Revenue Officer dated 1.9.2010 on the petitioner’s representation dated 31.8.2010 is produced in the material papers as P6. The petitioner states that while the said enquiry was pending with the Mandal Revenue Officer, the first respondent had finalized the dealership by ignoring his claim, hence he approached this Court and filed the present writ petition.

¶16

By order dated 13.9.2010, while issuing notice, this Court had directed that finalisation or allotment of dealership in question shall not be made pending further orders.

¶17

The first respondent has filed a counter-affidavit and states that so far as the grievance of the petitioner with regard to the dealership for the location he applied for does not survive as the notification dated 30.3.2010 issued by the first respondent inviting applications for appointment as distributor for the location in question itself has been withdrawn and the first respondent has decided to notify afresh. In view of that, the cause in the writ

¶18

petition so far as respondents 1 and 2 does not survive. So far as the petitioner’s application for consideration of his residence certificate pending with the 3^rd respondent, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions, submits that the third respondent would take appropriate steps and pass appropriate orders as per law on the application of the petitioner.

¶19

Recording the same, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3^rd respondent to pass appropriate orders expeditiously. No costs.

¶20

_________________________

¶21

VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶22

Dt. 23.11.2011 KR

C.Mahesh v. Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Mahesh v. Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited

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

S. Janaki Ramaiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Fisheries Co-operative Society Vs The Fisheries Development Officer

Pawan Patidar, Vs The Central Board of Counseling

M. Deepak Vs The Government of A.P.

Sri Venkata Kanaka Durga Lorry Transport, Vs The Singereni Collieries Company Limited.

Modem Kota Reddy, Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited