Dismissed

V. Venkatanarasimha Rao v. The Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Telangana HC7 Dec 2023WP/15457/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Leave Petitioner challenged the inaction of the Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation in selecting him for a retail outlet under Hamara Pump. The respondent argued that the cause of action no longer survives as the outlet was already operational. The court held the petition infructuous.

What did the court decide?

To grant relief in the form of a writ or direction to award a retail outlet.

V. Venkatanarasimha Rao Vs The Hindusthan… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

l32s2l

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 15457 OF 2011

¶7

Between:

¶8

V. Venkatanarasimha Rao, S/o. Guravaiah, aged 37 years, Occ: business R/o.H.No.3-18'1 , Nidamanuru (V&ltl) Nalgonda District

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

'1. The Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Chief Regional Manager (Retail), Secunderabad Retail Regional Officer, 130/1, Sebastian Road, S.D.Road, Secundabad - 500 003

¶12

Senior Regional Manager ( Retail ), Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation, Vijayawada, Mangalagiri Road, Near Saibaba Temple, Tadepalli, Guntur District

¶13

Sri Vemarapu Narsimhulu, S/o. Venkata Subbaiah, Business R/o. Nakirekal (V&M)' Nalgonda District

¶14

...RES'oNDENT.

¶15

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 writ or direction preferably writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent nos. I and 2 corporation in finalizing the selections and not selecting the petitioner for awarding Retail Outlet as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to guidelines and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to award retail out let under Hamara Pump (in rural market) in respect of location no.500 of Nidamanuru 2Km Stretch On Miryalaguda - N.Sagar Raod, Nalgonda District in favor of the petitioner in view of guidelines dt.28.02.2006 and also declare the "Residence eligibility criteria" for Hamara Pump (rural retail outlets) stipulated in clause 4(4) of the Guidelines of the Respondent Corporation for selection of Retail Outlet dealers as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the guidelines dt.28.2.2006 issued by

¶16

the ministry of Petroleum and consequently set aside the ordr:r dt. 19.7 .2011 passed by the Grievance Redressal Committee of the respondent corporation.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR

¶18

Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: SRI C. VENKATYAOAV

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1&2: SRI THOOM SRINIVAS, SC

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.15457 OF 2O11

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner approached this Court seeking the

¶25

relief as under:

¶26

"fo lssue writ or direction preferably writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent nos. l and 2 corporation in finalizing the selections and not selecting the petitioner for awarding Retail Outlet as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to^guidelines and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to award retail out let under Hamara Pump (in rural market) in respect of location no.500 of Nidamanuru 2Km Stretch On Miryalaguda N Sagar Road, Nalgonda District in favour of the^petitioner in view of guidelines dt.29-02-2006 and^pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

¶27

It is represented by Mr.Thoom Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the Retail out let has been running by respondent No.3, since 28.03.2012.

¶28

Mr. C.Venkat Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3 brings to the notice of this

¶29

¶30

Court that the cause of action in the present writ petition does not survive for adjudication any more.

¶31

Bringing the said submissions of learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 orr record, the present writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.

¶32

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶33

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ

¶34

Petition, shall stand closed,

¶35

SD/- P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //rRUE coPY/, O",

¶36

SECTION OFFICER

¶37

To,

¶38

One CC to SRl. KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR, Advocate IOPUCI

¶39

One CC to SRl. C. VENKAT YADAV ,Advocate [OPUC]

¶40

One CC to SRl. IHOOM SRINIVAS, STANDING COUNSEL [OPUC]

¶41

Two CD Copies

BM GJ

HIGH COURT

DATED:0711212023

ORDER

WP.No.15457 of 2011

I it s TA r4,
o C)
[ 5 JAN 202[
*
al i)

¶49

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTOUS WITHOUT COSTS

¶50

v
$,/

V. Venkatanarasimha Rao v. The Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V. Venkatanarasimha Rao v. The Hindusthan Petroleum 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

G. Mahesh Vs State of Telangana

Sri. B. Venkateswara Rao, Vs Chairman and Managing Director

Orsu Thirupathayya Vs The Union of India

Sri Natti Kumar Vs The Chief Election commissioner of India

Panchaneni Manohar Rao Vs The Union of India

B. Rajaiah Vs Sri Navin Mittal, I.A.S