Andhra Pradesh High Court

WP/13768/2017 of D.Mithun Chaitanya Vs Union of India, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, on 9 December 2025

Cites 0, Cited by 0

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 13768/2017 Between: 1. D.MITHUN CHAITANYA, S/O.PULLA RAO, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS OCC

APHC010571572017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

WRIT PETITION NO: 13768/2017

Between:

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

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…

1. D.MITHUN CHAITANYA, S/O.PULLA RAO, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS OCC : BUSINESS, R/O.FLAT NO.4B, RAM'S GOKUL RESIDENCY, PATTABHIPURAM, GUNTUR

...PETITIONER AND

1. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM NATURAL GAS, SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110001. REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

2. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD, VIJAYAWADA RETAIL REGIONAL OFFICE, NEAR SAI BABA TEMPLE, MANGALAGIRI ROAD, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522 501. REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER

...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 toto issue a writ, order or direction more so, a writ in the nature of mandamus, by declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in refusing to appoint the petitioner as retail outlet dealer to set up petrol bunk, as per the selection as dealer made by the 2nd respondent as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and opposed to public policy and consequentially to direct the 2nd respondent, to appoint the petitioner, as a dealer, as per the selection made by the 2nd respondent, at serial No.167 between Sangam Jagarlamudi and Angalakuduru villages and may pass such other order or orders as this

JS, J W.P.No.13768/2017

Hon'ble Court may be pleased to deem fit and proper in the interests of justice and equity. IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WVMP 3410 OF 2017 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 vacate the Interim orders dated 18.04.2017 passed in W.P.M.P.No. 17084 of 2017 in W.P.No. 13768 of 2017 and further dismiss the Writ Petition with costs

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 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner to appoint the petitioner as retail outlet dealer as per the selection made by the 2nd respondent to set up petrol bunk between Sangam Jagarlamudi and Angalakuduru villages, during the pendency of the above writ petition

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 IA NO: 6 OF 2017(WPMP 154824 OF 2017 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 Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. G VASANTHA RAYUDU Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. R SRIDHAR

2. THOOM SRINIVAS

3. V R REDDY KOVVURI

JS, J W.P.No.13768/2017

The Court made the following ORDER:

Though the matter was adjourned on 08.10.2025, 05.11.2025 and 26.11.2025, there was no representation on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, the matter was directed to be listed on 03.12.2025. Even on that day, there was no representation for the petitioner. Hence, the matter was listed today under the caption <for dismissal=.

Today when the matter is called, there is no representation for the petitioner. It appears that the learned counsel for the petitioner is not interested to prosecute the case.

Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed as non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date: 10.12.2025 rsd

JS, J

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

WRIT PETITION NO: 13768/2017

Date: 10.12.2025 rsd

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead