Modem Kota Reddy, Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. P. Prabhakar, advocate for respondents 1 to 3. No notice is required to be issued to 4^th respondent who is the present licencee in view of the order being passed in this writ petition.

¶14

The only grievance of the petitioner is that he has filed an appeal before the 2^nd respondent against the order of termination of his dealership, dated 10.11.2005, but the said appeal is not being entertained and no orders are being passed. It appears that the petitioner’s dealership was terminated on 10.11.2005 which was questioned by him in WP No. 26180 of 2005 unsuccessfully, against which WA 1051 of 2009 was preferred which was also dismissed and SLP Nos. 35150 and 35151 of 2009 were also dismissed by the Supreme Court, on 14.3.2011. The petitioner has thereafter availed remedy of appeal which is now pending before the 2^nd respondent. The said appeal appears to have been filed on 15.5.2011 and received by the 2^nd respondent on 19.5.2011 and since then it is pending.

¶15

As the aforesaid appeal is required to be considered and disposed of by the 2^nd respondent in accordance with law, it is appropriate to dispose of this writ petition directing the 2^nd respondent to consider and dispose of the said appeal in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶16

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶17

_________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶18

Dt. 23.11.2011 KR

Modem Kota Reddy, v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Modem Kota Reddy, v. Indian Oil 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

C.Mahesh Vs Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited

M. Deepak Vs The Government of A.P.

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