Disposed

A. Balchenna Reddy v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited And 2 others

Telangana HC19 Jun 2023WP/44795/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Petition challenging the inaction of respondents regarding a representation was disposed of. The High Court directed Respondents 1 and 3 to consider the specific representation within four weeks rather than granting relief to run tankers or declaring inaction as such at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Respondents Nos. 1 and 3 directed to consider the representation dated 12.11.2022 submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

A. Balchenna Reddy Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵⁶ ]

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:2t4795 OF 2022

¶7

Between

¶8

A. R/o H. No. 103/A anriBalchenna Reddv^{, S/o A. Sudhakar Reddy, Age 38 Yrs, Occ Contractor,} 104, Shaktisai Nagar, Mallapur, Hyderabad.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, represented by its Chief lnstallation Manager, Cherlapally lnstallation, HCL, Cherlapally, Hyderabad

¶12

2 The Chief lnstallation Manager, Bharat^petroleum Corporation Limited, Cherlapally Installation, HCL, Cherlapally, Hyderabad

¶13

.l The Divisional ceneral Manager (Retail), (South), Bharat pekoleum Corporation Limited, Ranganathan Girdens, t i tn Udin noaO, nnnJnagii, Chennai.

¶14

...RESPONOENTS

¶15

Petilion under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order/s more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents pursuant to representation of the petitioner dl. 1211112022 as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to run the tankers for transportation of MS/HSD from cherrapafly to Ros/customers within the state of Telangana.

¶16

lA NO: 1 oF 2022

¶17

Petilion under section 1 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to issue interim directions to the respondents to permit the petitioner to run the

¶18

tankers for transt)ortation of MS/HSD^{from cherlapally to ROs/Customers within} the state of Telangana,^{pendingldisposalof the Writ Petition.}

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner^{: SRl. V VENKATA MAYUR}

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents:^{SRIDOMINICFERNANDES} SC FOR BHARAT PETROLEUM

¶21

The Court made the^{following: ORDER}

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICE MUMMINENISUDHEER KUMAR} IVRIT PETITION NO.44795^OF ' ,o22

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Writ Petition is filed^{seeking to declare inaction} of respondents pursuant to^{the representation of the} petitioner dated 12.11.2022, as illegal^{and arbitrary.}

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the^{petitioner and Sri} Dominic Fernandes, learned Standing Counsel^appearing for respondents and perused the material^{z vailable on} record

¶26

It is the case of the petitioner that on an^earlier occasion, petitioner's contract was terminated on^the ground that one of his tankers was involved in malpractice and black listed his talkers for a period of two^{years and} aggrieved by the same, petitioner approached this^Courtby lrling W.P. No.14213 of 2O2O and this Court declared that once the said period of black listing has come to an^end, petitioner is entitled to participate in future tenders and respondent corporation shall not disqualify the petitioner in participating the future tenders after lapse of two^years

¶27

2 MSK,J W.P.NO.44795^{0F 2022} of black^I isting Periocl However, this Court was^not

¶28

inclinecl to permit^thc lletitioner^{to run the tankers in the} remalnil-Ig Pcriod^{of cont r.lct}

¶29

Having taken^{note of the extension of contract period} granted irt favour^{o[ othcr contracts through proceedings} dated 2¹ .09.²⁰²² ,^{|ne pe titioner vide representationdated} 12.I1 .2021sought^{extetlstonof suchsimilar benefit and to} extencl the^{period of contract in respect of the petitioner} also. As the^{said repre st:trta tion was not consideredby the} respondents,^{the petitioncrapproachedthis Court by filing} present vrn'it^petition

¶30

Learnecl^{StandingCounselappearing for respondents} sought time for^{filit-rgt:ortnter, however'expressed no} objection of^{disposalof the writ petition directing the} consideration^{of the said rcpresentationdated 12'll '2012'}

¶31

6.Inviewofthezrbove,thewritpetitionisdisposedof directing^{respondentNos l and 3 toconsiderthe} representation^{dated12 '11'2021 submitted bythe} petitioner ancl^{pass appl'ooriate orders thereon within a}

¶32

MSK,J W.P.NO.44795 0F 2022

¶33

¶34

period of four(4)^weeks from^{the date of receiptof a copy of}

¶35

this order. There shall be no^{order as to costs.}

¶36

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending sha,tl

¶37

stand closed.

¶38

SD/.AV.S. PRASAD //rRUE coPY//^{ASslsrAtI{EGlsrRAR}

¶39

sEcI_ffii oFFtcER

¶40

ro,

¶41

l The chief rnstalation Bharat^petroreum corporation Limited 'vranage r , -^{Cherlapally tnstallation, HCL,ChLlapally, Hyderabad} 2. The chief Instaflarion Manager, bnai"t^'petroreum corporation Limited, ^^{Cherlapallylnstaltation, HCL,Cherlapally, Hyderabad} 3 The Divisionar Generar Managei tnetalj, istutn), Bharat petroreum Chennai.Corporation Limited, Ranganathan Garden., f itt f,,,fjin n"iJ, n""r.rglr,

¶42

,4. One CC to SRl. V VENKATA MAyUR, Advocate. [OpUC] 5. ONE CC tO SRI. DOMINIC FERNANDE', SC FOR BHARAT PETROLEUM IoPUcI

¶43

Two CD Copies

BS i/-'-t\

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:1910612023

ORDER

t,
I v
c,
Lil
=1 :r:
,-L,
=
a/- slf: a'
/.
+
OJr y.i'l)

¶51

WP.No.44795 ot 2022

¶52

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶53

¶54

N.k--
t'\ -7
l.', ,/
\t

A. Balchenna Reddy v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited And 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. Balchenna Reddy v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited And 2 others

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

Y.Ramalakshmi, W/o.Y.S.Brahmam Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary -

Howjekar Anjana Bai Vs Gaikwad Girija Bai

Manda Satyanarayana Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Gee Pee Foods Private Limited Vs Micro and Small Enterprises

M/s Swarna Techno Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Union of India

S.Prathap Murthi Vs The Union of India