Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/3216/2016 of K.NAGAMANI, YSR DIST. Vs E.D., HPDCL, MUMBAI & 3 ORS. on 14 October 2025
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 3216/2016 Between: 1. K.NAGAMANI, YSR DIST., W/O K.RAMANA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 35
APHC010005952016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
WRIT PETITION NO: 3216/2016
Between:
1. K.NAGAMANI, YSR DIST., W/O K.RAMANA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, RIO DOOR NO.7-117, AMARAVATHI
STREET, DUVVUR, Y.S.R DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. E D HPDCL MUMBAI 3 ORS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR RETAIL HPCL, HINDUSTAN BHAVAN-8, SOOJAI VALLABHDAS MARG, POST BOX
NO.155, BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI.
2. THE CHIEF MANAGER RETAIL UPGRADATION, HINDUSTAN
PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, SOUTH CENTRAL ZONAL
OFFICE, PARISHRAMA BHAVAN, 7TH FLOOR, BASHEER BAGH, HYDERABAD.
3. THE REGIONAL MANAGER KADAPA REGION, REGIONAL OFFICE- RETAIL, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, KADAPA CITY, Y.S.R DISTRICT.
4. J SRI LAKSHMI, W/O J.VEERA RAVI PRATHAP REDDY, AGED
ABOUT
YEARS,
OCC:
HOUSEHOLD,
R/O.
H.NO.1-104,
PULLAREDDYPETA VILLAGE, DUVVUR MANDAL, Y.S.R 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 toissue an appropriate order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus aggrieved by the rejection of the complaint given by the petitioner against the selection of the respondent No.4 as Petroleum Retail Outlet Dealer of the respondents Corporation proposed to be established at Duvvur, Y.S.R.District even after recording that the respondent No.4 has given false information in her application in so for as the details of land offered to establish Petroleum Retail Outlet and that her candidature cannot be considered under Group-I on recording erroneous findings through the proceedings in Ref.DSC/KR0/312, dated 29-12-2015 as arbitrary, illegal.
colorable exercise of power, contrary to the guidelines on Selection of Dealers for Regular & Rural Retail Out-lets and settled principles of legal position apart from violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Petroleum Retail Outlet Dealer of the respondent Corporation at Duvvur, Y.S.R.District by declaring the selection of the respondent No.4 through the proceedings in Ref.DSC/KRO/312, dated 29- 12-2015 as illegal IA NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP 4088 OF 2016
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 respondent No.2 & 3 not to issue Letter of Intent infavour of the respondent No.4 for appointment as Petroleum Retail Outlet Dealer for the location at Duvvur, Y.S.R District, pending disposal of the above writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. V R REDDY KOVVURI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. SREEKANTH REDDY AMBATI
2. B MAYUR REDDY
3. CHALLA SIVASANKAR
The Court made the following:
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
WRIT PETITION NO: 3216/2016
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:
On 13.10.2025, learned counsel for the petitioner requested time to change vakalat and get instructions from his client. Today when the matter is called, Sri G.Vigneshwar Reddy, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioner sought further time.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submits that the 1st respondent has issued a letter of intent on 25.01.2016 appointing the 4th respondent in the retail outlet, therefore, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication.
3. Recording the said submission of the learned counsel for the 4th respondent, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
Date: 15th October, 2025 RKS