Disposed

Sravan Kumar Routhu v. The Union of India

Telangana HC7 Dec 2020WP/17868/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the Assistant Commissioner of Police is subordinate whose report is internal and does not constitute a final decision for judicial review. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the Commissioner of Police to oppose the report, with a time limit for decision.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to approach the Commissioner of Police (Traffic) to explain his stand against the subordinate's report regarding the NOC application for a petroleum outlet.

Sravan Kumar Routhu Vs The Union of India — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Originat Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITI ON NO: 1786I OF 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

!pvq1.^{Kuma,1 Routlry, S/oR.lr,4uralidhar,Aged ahout 3.1 years,} occ-Business. R/o, H.No.'1-155112, Flat No.12, Navayuga Villas, Suraram Vitt"gi Outhrb;itup* It4a ndal, [Vedcha l Malkajigiri District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Union of .lndia, Rep by under Secretary to the Ministry of petroleum and Natural Gas-A-wing, Shastri Bhavan, Rajendraprasad Road, New Delhi.

¶12

2 The Government of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Home Department Secretariat. hyderabad

¶13

3 The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Gachibowii, Gachibowli (Ranga Reddy District

¶14

4 The Deputy Commissioner of Police Trafflic), Cyberabad. Ranga Reddy District

¶15

5 The Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police, (Administration Cyberabad, Gachibowli Ranga Reddy

¶16

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Pet Basheerbad, Cybarabad. Gachibowli, Ranga Reddy District,

¶17

The Assistant Commissioner of Police (Traffic ), Balanager Traffiv Division Cyberabad Gachibowli Ranga Reddy District

¶18

B. G.Krishna @ Rama Krishna Reddy Nallavelli, S/o, Not known, R/o. H-No.1-1^'1- 25211 to 7 D/G..18, Allauddin Mansion, Begumpeta Secunderahad 500016.

¶19

M/s. lndian Oil Corporation Limited, Rep by its Deputy General Manager (Retail siles) Secunderabad Division Office, H.No.9-'1-83 and 84, Sarojinidevi Road Secunderabad-500003.

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition under Article 226 o'f the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF TMANDAIVUS to declare the of the Petitioner in establishing the action Certificate in favour action of the Respondents No.3 in not granting No objection Medak Road junction near SVAS centre relaying on the report submited by the 7th Respondent vide No,53/T4IACP/BNR-Tr/CYB 2019, daled 21101121020 and 2410212020 as illegal, arbitrary and null and void and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent to issue the N.O.C, in favour of the petitioner for establishing of^petroleum outlet of^gth Respondent in SY.No. 150 Dhulapally Village, Komapally Mandel, Medichal-lValkajgiri District.

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^{stated in the} affidavit frled in support of the petition, the High Court may be^{pleased to issue the} N.O.C. certificate in favour of the Petitioner notwithstanding the report submitted^by the 7th Respondent without applying the GO.Ms.No.233,^{dated09.091016pealing} finalization of the writ petition.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. J. KANAKAIAH

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: SRl. NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 7: AGP FOR HOME

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 8 & 9: NONE APPEARED

¶28

The Court made the following:

¶29

¶30

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶31

WRIT PETITION NO.17868 of 2O2O

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

Heard learned counsel for lhe petitioner, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for respondenl No.1 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 2to7.

¶34

In response to the paper notifical.ion issued by the Indian Oil Corporation I-imit-ccl (IOCL) calling for rvrllingncss ro esrablish pctroleum retail outlet in Dhulaptrlh X l?oads.Junction (Kazigurda; to Mcdak Road .lurnction near SVAS. Med ichal-Malkaj giri Dist ncr. p('titioncr applicd lor srturt of liccnr:c.^'lhc IOCL grantcd provisrt>nal ;rllocation oI liccncc to the peLitioncr as required by the Petrolcum Rlrlcs under the Pet rolclrm Act. I^q3.1 . Petitioner applicd lor gr:int ol No Objcction Ccrtil-i<:atc lNOO) to thc I)rstrict Authorit-' irr thir instanL casc, thc Commissioncr of Police (Traffic), C1'berabad-f,"i respondent. In this writ petition, pctitioncr challenges ttrc report submitted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Traffic), Balanagar-7rh respondent to the 3rd respondent which report indicaies that petitioner is not entitled to issuance of NOC.

¶35

lt is not disputed that the 3'd respondent alone is competent as per the Petroleum nct and thc Rules to consider NOC. Thc^7th rcsporrdcnl is onl, ;rn aulhoriL' ;.tt littg on ttchaif^r>l l)''i rt:spondctlt to cause phvsicz,rl inspection ol thc site and submit his report. It is r-tltimatclv lor the Commissioncr lo considr:r varlous aspccts ilnd 1;rl<r' ir dcc isiorr r,, hctlrr r- lo gr.lItt^()r nol t() llrelllt th(: NOC.^{As thc} report of 7rh rcspondent datecl 21.O1.2O2O is^anitltcrnetl

¶36

correspondence between the subordinate^{and superior authority,} the same does not give the petitioner cause of action to come^to rhis Court and to challenge the said communication.

¶37

At this stagc, lcarned counscl lor the pctitioner submits that thc rcport indicatcs that petitiorlcr is r-rot cntitlcd to get NOC ancl to hold that petitioncr is not cntitled to get NOC, the 7tl' rcspondct'tt placed reliancc on G.O.Ms.No.233, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M1) Departmcnt dated 09.09.2016, u'hercas the said G.O., has no application to the case of petitioner. lt is an internal report and statutory authority has not taken a decisior-r so far. Judicial review is against a dr:cision of statutor) authority and not at the stage of processing the issue. At this stage, it cannot be presumed that he would take a decision adopting the reasoning forming part of the report ol Assistant Commissioner of Police and pre-empt him from taking an adverse decision against petitioner.

¶38

Since petitioner is ar.vare of the reasons mentioned in the report submitted by the Assistant Commissioncr of Police to thc Commissioncr of Policc and so far the Commissioner has not taken thc dec'ision. it is opt:n to lirc pt'titiorrcr to l;rirre lo thc rrotic't' of Commissioni:r of Polce his version of cr-rtitlcmcnt irnd u'hv the rcport is r-rot validiy made.

¶39

'l'hus, pctrtioner is granted libern' to :nakc applicatior-l to rllc Commissioner of Police (Traffic), Cl berabad Police Commissionerate, explaining his stand on the content of report of Assistant Commissioncr of Police, datcd 21.01.2020, now availablc with the petitioner. If such application is made explaining his version, the Commissioner of Police (Traffic), Cyberabad Police Commissioncrate shall consider the same beforc taking a decision

¶40

-l

¶41

on the .rpplication submittcd bl the petitioner to grant NOC. A decision shall be taken u,rLhin a pcriod ol four u,ceks from the date ol rccerpt ol copl' of this order. If petitioner intends to submiL ant application, thc same shall be submitted u'ithin tu'o r'l'eeks from todav.

¶42

With the above observations the Writ Petition is disposed of Miscellaneous petrtions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

SD/-M.MANJULA

ASSISTANT REGIST

//TRUE COPY//

SECTIO OFFICER

To,

The Under Secretary to the lVinistry of Petroleum and Natural Gas-A-wing, Union of lndia, Shastri Bhavan, Rajendraprasad Road, New Delhi.

¶49

The Principal Secretary Home Department, Government of Telangana, Secretariat, hyderabad

¶50

The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Gachibowii, Gachibowli (Ranga Reddy District

¶51

The Deputy Commissioner of Police Trafflic), Cyberabad. Ranga Reddy District

¶52

The Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police, (Administration Cyberabad, Gachibowli Ranga Reddy

¶53

Tfre Assistant Commissioner of Police, Pet Basheerbad, Cybarabad. Gachibowli, Ranga Reddy District,

¶54

The Assistant Commissioner of police (Traffic ), Balanager Traffiv Division Cyberabad Gachibowli Ranga Reddy District

¶55

One CC to Sri. J. Kanakaiah, Advocate IOPUC]

¶56

One CC to Sri. Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, Asst. Solicitor General [OPUC]

¶57

Two CD Copies.

PIV

HIGH COURT

OATED:0711212020

ORDER

1 H e ) TA
(
o
r:-
l5DECm
A
.r<br>,t
PA:IC
{.--. .

¶63

WP.No.17868 of 2020

¶64

Disposing of the WP Without costs.

¶65

<br>V

Sravan Kumar Routhu v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sravan Kumar Routhu v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M a Moiz Abbasi Vs Mr Kishan Naik

RamsettySudhakar Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

Cheguri Anitha Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others

Mohammed Mouse , Ohouse Pasha Vs The State of Telangana

Paridham Raju Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

Shahbaz Nawaz , Shahbaz Vs The State of Telangana