Disposed

Abid Hussain v. Union of India and 2 others

Telangana HC21 Oct 2021WP/5337/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order at the admission stage disposed of a writ petition seeking a mandatory direction to declare a dealership refusal illegal and to consider a transfer request. The Court directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation with documents within two weeks for the 2nd respondent to consider.

What did the court decide?

Direction to submit fresh representation with documents within two weeks for consideration by the 2nd respondent within eight weeks.

Abid Hussain Vs Union of India and 2 others — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶5

WRIT PETITION N O: 5337 OF 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

Abid Hussain, S/o, Ahmed Hussain, Aoed 58 vears. F/o. H. No.11-5-409, Red Hjlls, Hyderabad, TeTangana - 5OOOOa.^{Occ.Business,}

¶8

AND

¶9

.,.PETITIONER

¶10

Union of lndia, Rep. by its Under Secretary -petroleum and Natural Gas, Ministrv of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Shastrr Bhavan, New Delhi

¶11

It//s. Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd, (A Govt. of lndia Enterprises), Rep. by its I\4anaging. Director, Bharath Bhavan, 4 and 6, Kruuimbhoy Road, B6ttar<l Estate, Mumbai.

¶12

aJ M/s. Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd, Rep. by its Territorial Manager (Retail), Charlapalli, Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of 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 of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not receiving the representation / request from the petitioner requesting to change the dealership from the name of the firm M/s. Jayasree Enterprises to M/s- Jayasree Enterprises proprietary concern in the name of the petitioner relating to the customer code 134803 at premises bearing No. 13-5-802 and 803, Sabjimandi, Karvan Road, Hyderabad, as illegal and arbitrary and further direct the 3rd respondent to receive the request application and consider the same and may be pleased.

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 3rd respondent to receive the representation / request of the petitioner for change of dealership from the name of l,4i s. Jayasree Enterprises to lr,4/s. Jayasree Enterprises proprietary concern in the name of the petitioner relating to the customer code 134803 at premises bearing No.13-5-802 and 803, Sabjimandi, Karvan Road, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI C. RAGHU

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI B. MAYUR REDDY, SC FOR BPCL

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE HON'I}LE SRI JUSTICE AI}HINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WIUT PETITION No.5337 of 2021

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage ,ith the consent of both paties.

¶24

2 This writ petition is filed seeking the following reiief:

¶25

"...to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate r.r,rit, ,:rder or direction, declaring the action of the 3.d respordent in not receiving the representation/request lrom the pe_itioner requesting to change the dealership from the name of the Firm M/s. Jayasree Enterprises to N4/s. Jayasree Enlerprises proprietary Concern in the name 01'the petitioner relating to the customer codc 134g03 at prenris:s bearing No. l3-5_g02 & g03, Sabjimancli. Karvan i{oad. llr,dcrabad, as illegal and arbitrary and lirrther direct thc 3''r r.cspondent to receive the request applicarion and consider the same and rnay be pleased to pass such other order or orders as are just and necessarl, in the

¶26

circumstances of the case.,,

¶27

Heard Sri. C. Raghu, counsel for the petitioner, and Sri B. Mayur Ileddy, Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3

¶28

It is the case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent has granted MSiHSD dealership to one Sri V. Venkateswarlu on 05.05.2003 in the narre and style ol M/s. Jayasree Enterprises. Subsequently, the petilioner was inclucted as a panner to N4/s. Jayasree Enterprises. The petitioner fr'u'ther stated that as the said v. venkateswarru has expired, the paftnership gcr dissolved. Thereafter. the petitioner has submitted

¶29

AXS,J W.P.No.5337_2021

¶30

¶31

a detailed representation^{to the respondents on 30 '09 '2020 to transfer} the dealership^{in his favour, but the respondents are not.receivingthe} said representation'

¶32

Therefore, counsel^{for the petitioner had contendedthat} appropriate^{orders be passed in the writ petition directingthe} respondents^{to considerthe representation submittedby the petitioner} on 30.09.2020^{and pass appropriateordersin accordancewith law'}

¶33

Standing^{Counsel appearing tbr respondentNos'l and 2 had} contended^{that the dealershipwas originally granted in favour of} SriV'VenkateswarluinthenameandstyleofM/s.Jayasree Enterprises^{and the petitioneris a strangerto the said Enterprises'} Standing Counsel^{further contendedthat if only the petitionergets 'No} Objection'^{from the legal heirs of the deceasedV' Venkateswarlu'the} original dealer^{of IWs. JayasreeEnterprises'the respondentswould} consider the^{case of the petitionerand pass appropriateorders in} accordance^withlaw.

¶34

7 . Having^{considered the rival submissionsof leamed counselfor} respective^{parties, this Court is of the consideredview that this writ} petition can be^{disposedof directing the petitionerto submit a fresh} lepresentation,^{along with all necessarydocuments'to the2nd} respondent^{within a period of two weeks from the dateof receipt of a} copy of^{this order.Uponsuch representationbeing received' the2nd} respondent^{shall considerthe sameand pass appropriateorders in} accordance^{with law, in anothereight weeks theleq{e1'-}

¶35

1==

¶36

li5,l \'.P No.5ll7 l02l

¶37

¶38

8 With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No

¶39

order as to costs.

¶40

Pending rniscellaneous petitions, ifany, shall stand closed.

¶41

¶42

SD/. K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR q

¶43

//TRUE COPY//

¶44

SECTION OFFICER

¶45

To, l The Under secretary -petrole_um and Natural Gas, Union of rndia, Ministrv of ^^{Petroleum andNatuiatcas, Snastri errJva,i'rrr-eli'rieinl ii'i"'!e'I, v,} 2 The Managing Director, Mls Bnarittipeiroteu,iborporation Ltd, (A Govt. of rndra€nterprises), Bhararh Bhavan, + ano-0, xiluim6h", R;;;'Ei;ilu'ri,iri.t"

¶46

3 The Territoriar Manaoer (Retair), M/s. Bharath perroreum corporation Ltd, Charlapallr, Hvderabld

¶47

1 9n" 9q !o ^Sfi.C^{Rashu. Advocate} [opuC] 5 One CC to Sri N:rmavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, Asst. soricitor Generar, Advocate [oPUC]

¶48

I 9nu^{CC to Sri B Mayur Reddy,} SC for BpCL, tOpUCl 7. Two CD Copies

B. One Spare Copy

sl.nA},

HIGH COURT

DATED:21t1Ot2021

ORDER

WP.No.5337 ol 2021

¶55

S
on'
I
t
0I il0lli0?1

¶56

DISPOSING OF THE VVP WITHOUT COSTS

¶57

% 's.,

Abid Hussain v. Union of India and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abid Hussain v. Union of India and 2 others

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

Sri Nagarjuna Degree College and Another Vs The Osmania University and 2 Others

Uppathi Nagamani Vs The State of Telangana

K. Sreedhar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and another

Smt. S. Lalitha Padmini Vs Bank of Baroda

M/s Jai Kishan Cold Storage Vs The Authorized Officer

M/s Arush Enterprises and 2 Others Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others