Telangana High Court
WP/10399/2007 of T.Dasarath Ram, Vs The Territory Manager (L.P.G.) Bharath Petroleum on 24 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 10399 of 2007 Between: T.Dasarath Ram, s/o Ramulu, Ramnagar, Mahaboobnagar District.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENTTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULUWRIT PETITION NO : 10399 of 2007
Between:
T.Dasarath Ram, s/o Ramulu, Ramnagar, Mahaboobnagar District.
AND
..... PETITIONER
The Territory Manager (L.P.G.) Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,Bottling Plant, N.H.No.7,217/6, K.M.Stone P.B.No.10-B, P.O.Kurnool-518 002.
.....RESPONDENT
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying thatin the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Courtwill be pleased to issue order or direction more so in the nature of writof mandamus a) declaring the action of the respondent in not takingsteps for calling the petitioner for interview for the dealership of GASAgency in Nagar Kurnool or in any place in Mahaboobnagar District isillegal, arbitrary, bad, malafide and unconstitutional under Article 14and 16 of the Constitution of India and b) consequently direct therespondent to consider the case of the petitioner by calling him to theinterview conducting within four days on par with others, who aresimilarly situated persons for the dealership of GAS Agency in NagarKurnool or any other places within the Mahaboobnagar District in theinterest of justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.DILIP RAO
Counsel for the Respondent: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY
The Court made the following :THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU
W.P. No. 10399 of 2007
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.
O R D E R:
Due to efflux of time, the cause in the writ petition does not survive.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as havingbecome infructuous.
However, it is submitted by the learned counsel for thepetitioner that while submitting the application pursuant to theadvertisement dated 25.7.1998, the petitioner had paid an amount ofRs.500/- towards fee etc. and since the petitioner was never called forinterview, he is entitled for refund of the said amount.
In the facts and circumstances, the respondents aredirected to verify and refund the said fee, if any paid by the petitioner,within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of thisorder.
C.V. RAMULU, J.
Date: 24-12-2008.
MVB.