Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/3669/2023 of TAMARALA PRASAD Vs THE DY GENERAL MANAGER on 7 January 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION Nos.40272/2022 and 3669/2023 WRIT PETITION No.40272/2022 Between: 1. CHITRADA SRINIVASA
APHC010678732022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
WRIT PETITION Nos.40272/2022 and 3669/2023
WRIT PETITION No.40272/2022
Between:
1. CHITRADA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O LATE SOMESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS OCC BUSINESS, R/O D.NO.13-198/1
MARKET
STREET,
SOMPETA
TOWN
AND
MANDAL
SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY
OF PETROLEUM AND GAS DEPT, SASTRI BHAVAN NEW
DELHI.
2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, PETROLEUM AND GAS DEPT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI GUNTUR DIST.
3. THE DY MANAGERLPG REGION, HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM
CORPORATION
LTD,
VISAKHA
NEW
LPG
TERMINAL
TRANING HALL VISAKHA LPG RO, HP-PETRO PARK, PORT, CONNECTVITY
ROAD
VISAKHAPATNAM
TOWN
AND
DISTRICT.
4. T PRASAD, S/O JAGGA RAO AGED ABOUT 47 OCC
BUSINESS,
MAKHARAMPURAM
VILLAGE
KANCHILI
MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pleased to issue a writ order or direction
JS,J
more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the action to declare the action of the Respondents No.1 to 3 for selection of the LPG Distributorship / Dealer ship at Sompeta town and mandal Srikakulam district selecting in favour of the 4th respondent /2nd Priority Eligible list candidates / applicants instead of Is' Priority Eligible list of Applicants / Candidates is highly illegal, arbitrary, and violation of the Art. 14. 16 and 21 Of Constitution of India and violation of Hindustan petroleum corporation Ltd appointment of LPG distributors Notification rules and also violation of the principals of natural Justice and consequently Direct the 3rd respondent to appoint the petitioner as 1st priority eligible candidate for selection of the LPG Distributorship / Dealer ship at Sompeta town and mandal Srikakulam district and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022
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 appoint the petitioner as 1' priority eligible candidate for selection of the LPG
Distributorship / Dealer ship at Sompeta town and mandal Srikakulam district and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025
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 may be pleased to grant leave to file the counter affidavit on behalf of 1st Respondent in the above Writ Petition WP No. 40272 of 2022 in the interest of justice IA NO: 2 OF 2025
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 grant leave for filing counter affidavit by the 4rt un official respondent in WP.No.40272/2022 and may pass such other order or orders.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. TOTA TEJESWARA RAO
JS,J
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. M UMA DEVI (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)
2. M R TAGORE
3. G RAMA GOPAL
WRIT PETITION No.3669/2023
Between:
1. TAMARALA PRASAD, S/O T.JAGGA RAO, AGED 49 YEARS, R/O MAKARAMPURAM (VILLAGE AND POST), KANCHILI
MNDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE DY GENERAL MANAGER, HINDUSTANPETROLEUM
CORPORATION LTD. (A GOVT. OF INDIA ENTERPRISES)
LPG
VISAKH
REGION,
HP
PETRO
PARK,
PORT
CONNECTIVITY ROAD, VISAKHAPATNAM 530014
2. HINDUSTANPETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD A GOVT OF
INDIA ENTERPRISES, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND
MANAGING DIRECTOR, PETROLIUM HOUSE17, JAMSHEDJI
TATA ROAD, MUMBAI -400 020.
3. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY
OF PETROLIUM AND NATURAL GAS DEPARTMENT, SASTRI
BHAVAN, NEW DELHI.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the 1st respondent in cancelling the selection of the petitioner for regular LPG Distributionship under Open category at Sompet Village and Mandal of Srikakulam District vide impugned letter Ref No.ASV/VLRO, dated 31-1-2023 as highly illegal,arbitrary and contrary to the selection made vide letter dated 7- 12-2022 and consequentially the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 31-1-2023, by declaring that the petitioner is entitled for regular LPG Distributionship, at Sompet of Srikakulam District as per the letter dated 7-12-2022 and may pass
JS,J
IA NO: 1 OF 2023
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 stay all further process of selection for regular LPG Distributionship under Open Category, at Sompet of Srikakulam District, by suspending the impugned letter Ref No.ASV/VLRO, dated 31-1-2023, pending disposal of Writ Petitioner and may pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025
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 may be pleased to grant leave to file the counter affidavit on behalf of 1st Respondent in the above Writ Petition WP No. 3669 of 2023 in the interest of justice.
IA NO: 2 OF 2025
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 may pleased to grant leave for filing reply affidavit in the above WP.No.3669/2023 and may pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. M R TAGORE
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. G RAM GOPAL RAO
2. G RAMA GOPAL
This Court made the following:
JS,J
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.
COMMON ORDER:
The parties are common to both these cases. Hence, they are heard and being disposed of together by this common order. For convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in W.P.No.40272 of 2022.
2. The 2nd respondent-Corporation issued a notification dated 15.09.2013 for allotment of LPG distributors in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner and the 3rd respondent submitted applications for LPG distributorship in Sompeta Town/Mandal, Srikakulam District, under the O.C. category.
3. The 3rd respondent was selected through a draw of lots conducted on 07.12.2022, vide Ref.No.VLRO/ASV/SOMPETA, dated 08.12.2022. In accordance with the said proceedings, the 3rd respondent duly remitted the requisite amount on 15.12.2022. The 3rd respondent stated that the lease agreement for the showroom was cancelled on 06.08.2022, and he requested a week’s time to submit a revised agreement. The 2nd respondent-Corporation did not oppose this request and declared the 3rd respondent as the successful candidate.
JS,J
4. On 05.01.2023, the Mandal Surveyor of Kanchili, Makarampuram Village, conducted a survey and submitted a report stating that an extent of Ac.1.28 cents in Sy. No.170/1 located in Makarampuram Village, Kanchili Mandal, Srikakulam District, was offered for godown purpose. It was also noted that an extent of Acs.4.25 cents in Sy.No.224/5 of Mogalikotturu situated in Sompeta Mandal, Srikakulam District, was offered for showroom purpose.
5. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent-Corporation, vide reference No. ASV/VLRO, dated 31.01.2023, revoked the allotment of distributorship made in favour of the 3rd respondent, on the ground that he has not complied with the requirements as per selection guidelines for LPG distributorship. Aggrieved by this decision, the 3rd respondent filed W.P.No. 3669 of 2023.
6. By an order dated 22.02.2023 in W.P.No.3669 of 2023, this Court granted an interim stay of further process of selection for regular LPG distributorship, which was later extended until further orders of the Court.
7. W.P.No.40272 of 2022 came to be filed by the petitioner challenging the action of the 2nd respondent-Corporation in selecting
JS,J
the 3rd respondent from the second priority eligible list, instead of choosing the petitioner from the first priority eligible list.
8. Counter affidavits were filed in both the writ petitions. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent-Corporation in W.P.No.40272 of 2022, it is stated that the selection of distributor is conducted under the Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributorship, 2013. Clause 6.1(i) of the said Guidelines does not specify any categorization or prioritization criteria, particularly with regard to locality. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner is not acceptable.
9. In the counter affidavit filed in W.P.No.3669 of 2023, it is asserted that the eligibility of candidates shall be assessed solely on the information provided in the applications and the accompanying documents. On 05.01.2023, field verification was conducted by the Area Sales Manager in conjunction with the V.R.O. and the Mandal Surveyor, who observed that the land offered by the 3rd respondent was not in conformity with the notification. Furthermore, during the same verification, it was noted that the site was short by ten months
(10) and one (1) day in meeting the fifteen-year requirement, and that the 3rd respondent had surrendered the lease on 06.08.2022. Consequently, the rejection of the 3rd respondent’s case was justified.
JS,J
10. There was no representation on behalf of the petitioner in W.P.No.40272 of 2022. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent-Corporation and Sr. M.R. Tagore, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.
11. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that the 3rd respondent had submitted an application, accompanied by a lease agreement dated 18.01.2013, for leasing an LPG godown and showroom for a period of fifteen years. The 2nd respondent- Corporation did not complete the selection process; consequently, the 3rd respondent rescinded the lease agreement for the showroom on 06.08.2022. Three months after such rescission, the 2nd respondent- Corporation selected the 3rd respondent’s candidature. The 3rd respondent deposited Rs.25,000/- by way of a demand draft on 15.12.2022. But, the 2nd respondent-Corporation, without issuing any notice or providing an opportunity of hearing, rejected the candidature of the 3rd respondent, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the 3rd respondent states that a representation dated 06.02.2023 was forwarded to the 2nd respondent-Corporation, but remained unaddressed.
i) Additionally, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent refers to this Court's decision in W.P. No.27387 of 2022 dated 14.10.2022, wherein
JS,J
the respondent's counsel, Sri B.V. Krishna Rao, acknowledged that the petitioners are entitled to an opportunity to offer an alternative site for establishing an LPG godown. Clause 6 specifies the eligibility criteria for individual applicants; notably, Clauses 6(6) and 6(7) of Clause 6(i) clarify that the term “own” refers to ownership of the property through a registered lease agreement of at least fifteen years, in the name of the applicants or their family members, as of the last date for submission of applications.
12. As Seen from Guideline 6.1 (i) of the Guidelines on Selection of Regular LPG Distributorship (Applicable to all locations Advertised/ Re-advertised from August, 2013 onwards), the applicant should be an Indian citizen and be a resident of India and it does not lay down any prioritization criteria especially on the basis of locality. Therefore, the question of selection of local candidates only does not arise and the contention of the petitioner in W.P.No.40272 of 2022 is not tenable and the writ petition filed by him is liable to be dismissed.
13. This Court has carefully examined the order in W.P.No.27387 of 2022 cited by the 3rd respondent, as well as the order dated 19.06.2024 in W.P.No.6444 of 2024 cited by the 2nd respondent- Corporation, which was upheld in W.A.No.682 of 2024. The order in W.P.No.27387 of 2022 directly pertains to the 3rd respondent’s case.
JS,J
However, the judgment referenced by the 2nd respondent-Corporation is distinguished by different factual circumstances, as in that case, the applicant did not furnish a valid lease for the godown as well as for showroom at the time of the application; therefore, the order/judgment is not applicable for the given facts.
14. In the present case, the 3rd respondent has duly fulfilled all requisite formalities, with the lease agreement remaining effective until 6.08.2022. The 3rd respondent has paid lease dues for a period of fourteen years. As the 2nd respondent-Corporation did not proceed with the notification, the 3rd respondent withdrew/cancelled the lease. Additionally, the 3rd respondent submitted a representation requesting one-week extension and expressed willingness to enter into a lease agreement for the subsequent fifteen years. However, the 2nd respondent-Corporation rejected his request without adequate consideration. Eligible applicants such as the 3rd respondent should not be penalized for circumstances beyond their control. The 2nd respondent-Corporation is legally bound to adhere to the principles of natural justice by providing a fair opportunity to produce a valid lease agreement prior to rejection, as eligibility is generally determined at the time of application. The 3rd respondent fulfilled the requirements in
JS,J
2013. The subsequent inability to sustain the lease arose from the inability to pay rent over the past fourteen years.
15. This Court, having regard to the order passed in W.P. No. 27387 of 2022 and the contents of paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit submitted by the respondent-Corporation in W.P.No.3669 of 2023, finds it appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent-Corporation (in W.P.No.40272 of 2022) to re-examine the candidature or selection of the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent shall be granted sufficient time to secure alternative land for the dealership. The process of allotment shall proceed from the stage of field verification and credential assessment.
16. In the result, with the above observation, Writ Petition No.3669 of 2023 is disposed of, and Writ Petition No.40272 of 2022 is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
8th January, 2026 cbs
JS,J
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
Writ Petition Nos.40272 of 2022 and 3669 of 2023
8th January, 2026 cbs