Allowed

Devarakonda Srinivasa Rao v. The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited

Telangana HC27 Dec 2012WP/10264/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the rejection of a dealership application due to an inadvertent mention of a competitor in an affidavit's verification clause. The Court held that the error was unwitting and directed the Corporation to reconsider the application alongside others via fresh interviews.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the letter rejecting the applicant's application; directed the Corporation to treat the application as valid and reconsider it along with others by holding fresh interviews.

Devarakonda Srinivasa Rao Vs The Hindustan… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.10264 of 2012

¶3

Dated: 27.12.2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

Devarakonda Srinivasa Rao .. Petitioner. And The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Rep. by its Senior Regional Manager, Vijayawada Retail Regional Office, Guntur District, and another. .. Respondents.

¶6

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M. Gnaneswar Rao

¶7

Counsel for Respondent No.1: Ms. Vladimea Khatoon for Mr. K.V.Simhadri, (SC for HPCL)

¶8

Counsel for Respondent No.2: Mr. Venkateswarlu Chakkilam

¶9

The Court made the following:

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside letter dated 08.02.2012 of respondent No.1.

¶12

I have heard Mr. M.Gnaneswar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Vladimea Khatoon, learned counsel representing Mr. K.V.Simhadri, Standing Counsel for Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, and Mr. Venkateswarlu Chakkilam, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶13

In response to notification issued by respondent No.1 for award of retail outlet dealership at Addanki, Prakasam District, the petitioner made his application. Respondent No.2 also submitted his application for the said purpose. By the impugned communication, respondent No.1 has rejected the petitioner’s application on the ground that in paragraph 6 of the affidavit filed by him, he has mentioned the name of Indian Oil Corporation.

¶14

Both the respondents filed separate counter affidavits seeking to justify the rejection of the petitioner’s application.

¶15

In paragraph 6 of the affidavit, the petitioner stated as under: “I hereby verify that what has been stated above is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing material has been concealed thereof. If any information/declaration given by me in my/our application or in any document submitted by me in support of application for the award of H.P. Corporation

¶16

dealership or in this affidavit shall be found to be untrue or incorrect or false, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., would be within its rights to withdraw the letter of intent/terminate the dealership (if already appointed) and that we would have to claim, whatsoever, against Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., for such withdrawal/termination.” (Emphasis added)

¶17

From the contents of paragraph 6, it is clearly evident that the petitioner has referred to respondent No.1 Corporation both in the 6^th line as well as the 11^th line of the paragraph. However, in the 7^th line, he has mentioned “Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,” instead of “Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.” Taking into consideration the context in which the affidavit is filed, there cannot be any doubt that reference to Indian Oil Corporation Limited is by way of sheer inadvertence and the same cannot be pleaded as willful and conscious act of the petitioner.

¶18

In my opinion, respondent No.1 Corporation ought not to have been so rigid in rejecting the petitioner’s application only on the ground of mentioning of the name of a different Corporation in place of respondent No.1 Corporation. Therefore, I do not find any justification in the action of respondent No.1 in rejection of the petitioner’s application only on this ground. Accordingly, the impugned letter is quashed.

¶19

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioner has suppressed the fact that he is working as Fair Price Shop dealer, which disentitles him to apply for dealership.

¶20

As the petitioner’s application has not been rejected on this ground, it is not appropriate for this Court to deal with this aspect at this stage. Respondent No.2 is entitled to raise all his objections on the purported inviability of the petitioner before respondent No.2.

¶21

For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed with

¶22

the direction to respondent No.1 to treat the petitioner’s application as valid one and re-consider the same along with the other applications including that of respondent No.2 by holding fresh interviews.

¶23

As a sequel, interim order dated 13.04.2012 is vacated and WPMP.No.12975 of 2012 and WVMP.No.3362 of 2012 are disposed of.

¶24

_______________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J

¶25

27.12.2012 v v

Devarakonda Srinivasa Rao v. The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devarakonda Srinivasa Rao v. The Hindustan 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

K.Satyanarayana Vs The Joint Collector,Medak at Sangareddy

Smt.Mediboina Seethamma Vs The Joint Sub-Registrar

M/s. Espionage Technologies (P) Ltd., Vs Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam

Orsu Kotaiah, Vs The Senior Divisional Engineer ( North)

E.Venkatesulu, Vs The District Collector

Dr. N. Subba Rao, Vs The Assistant Provident Commissioner (Recovery)