Telangana High Court
WP/40734/2014 of Mohd Mudassir Ahmed Vs The General Manager, on 31 December 2014
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.40734 of 2014 Between: Mohd. Mudassir Ahmed, S/o. Mohd. Jabir Ahmed,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OFANDHRA PRADESH
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN
Present
Between:
Mohd. Mudassir Ahmed, S/o. Mohd. Jabir Ahmed,Aged about 25 years, R/o. H.No.3-5-1/101,Asad Baba Nagar, Bhainsa, Adilabad.
.. Petitioner
AND
The General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,IOCL, IAO, 3[rd] Floor, Narspur Complex,Hymayat Nagar, Hyderabad & 3 others ..
Respondents
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
In pursuant to the notification issued on 15.09.2013 by therespondent Corporation calling for applications for enlisting ofthe LPG Distributor in Adilabad District including the location atBhainsa, Adilabad District, the petitioner has also applied. Afterpreliminary verification of the eligibility, the petitioner was alsosubjected to selection process by way of draw of lots. Thecase of the petitioner is that the draw of lots was held on30.10.2014 and the 4[th] respondent was selected as eligible toaward the dealership. Alleging that the 4[th] respondent is noteligible and that he has produced false and fabricateddocuments, the petitioner complained to the Chief Area Managerof the respondent Corporation on 24.11.2014. The grievance ofthe petitioner necessitating institution of this writ petition is that in spite of receiving of complaint, the respondent Corporationhas not considered the said complaint and is proceeding tofinalize the selections in favour of the 4[th] respondent.
2. Sri Thoom Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel forthe respondent Corporation, submits that in accordance with theguidelines governing the selections, whenever a complaint is received, the same would be attended to before finalizing theselections.
3. Having regard to the said submission, the Writ Petition isdisposed of directing the respondent Corporation to consider thecomplaint given by the petitioner on 24.11.2014 and take adecision on the said complaint before finalizing the selectionsfor appointment of a dealer for the LPG Distribution in BhainsaMandal, Adilabad District. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition,shall stand closed.
_________________
P.NAVEEN
RAO, J
Date: 31[st] December, 2014
KL
Date: 31[st] December, 2014
KL