Disposed

Maddala Raj Kumar, v. M/s.Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Telangana HC12 Oct 2017WP/33041/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenges the selection of the 4th respondent as an LPG distributor alleging violation of guidelines regarding earning members. The court directed respondents to consider petitioner’s written objections rather than deciding on merits.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s objections within six weeks.

Maddala Raj Kumar, Vs M/s.Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT PETITION No. 33041 OF 2017

¶2

O R D E R :

¶3

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the selection of the 4^th respondent as a LPG Distributor for Kothagudem, by virtue of the notification dated 15.09.2013, and seeking to set aside the selection list dated 01.12.2014.

¶4

The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the notification issued in 2013, under Scheduled Castes category, he applied for LPG distributorship and accordingly, he was directed to be present on 01.12.2014 at Indane Area Office, Vijayawada to participate in drawal of lots. However, among the short-listed candidates, the 4^th respondent was selected as a LPG distributor. The petitioner had therefore, filed objections raising the ground that the 4^th respondent is drawing salary and emoluments to the tune of Rs.36,000/- per month as the Chair-Person of the Zilla Parishad, Khammam, and thus, she is ineligible to be considered for grant of distributorship, as, under the guidelines for selection of regular LPG distributor, a person to be considered for appointment shall not be in employment / earning member. Since such guideline is violated in the case of the 4^th respondent, the petitioner made a representation dated 12.09.2017 to the 1^st respondent to cancel the selection of the 4^th respondent, but however, the same has not been considered so far.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Dominic Fernandez, learned Standing Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3.

¶6

¶7

In view of the fact that the 4^th respondent came to be selected for grant of distributorship in 2014 itself, this Court is not inclined to pass any order on merits, at this stage. However, considering the plea of the petitioner to, at least, direct the respondents to consider the objections raised by him, without expressing any opinion on merits, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and dispose the objections raised by the petitioner vide representation dated 12.09.2017 within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶8

Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall

¶9

stand closed.

¶10

____________________________
CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J
12 th October 2017
ksld

Maddala Raj Kumar, v. M/s.Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maddala Raj Kumar, v. M/s.Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

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

Mr. a. Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana

B. S. Bugudi Educational Society Regd. No. 1587/2006 Vs The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal

M/s. N.K.R.M Junior College, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Sirikoti Jhansi Rani Vs State Bank of India

Kalle Venkataramana Vs The State of A.P.

Devarakonda College of Engineering and Technolgy Vs The State Bank of India