IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8142 of 2008 Between: 1 J. Venkata Ramana, S/o. Yanadaiah, HIndu, R/o. Door No. 13/28/7B, Avenue Road, Madanepalle, Chittoor District. 2 S. Sankara, S/o. Srinivasulu, Hindu, R/o. Door No.II-245-E-5-I, Kuravonk, Kadiri Road, Madanepalle, Chittoor District. 3 Basheer Ahmed, S/o. R.M.D. Ghouse, Muslim, R/O. Door No. 13/287, Avenue Road, Madanepalle, Chittoor District. 4 V. V. Subba Reddy, S/.o. Chengal Reddy, Hindu, R/O. Door No. VI/1, Avenue Road, Madanepalle, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Re. by its General Manager, Souther Region, 139, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai. 2 Chief Regional Manager (Executive Director), Indian Oil Corporation Limited, NO. 3-6-436 to 438, II Floor, Naspur House, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad 520 029. 3 Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Marketing Division, Tirupathi Divisional Office, Door No. 18-8-36E, Madhuranagar, Tirupathi - 517 501, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.V.S.R.ANJANEYALU Counsel for the Respondents: MR.P.V.SANJAY KUMAR The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in proceeding with the appointment of “Kisan Seva Kendra Operators” for Kalikiri Mandal of Chittoor District without issuing notice, as illegal and ultra vires the provisions of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The petitioners sought for a direction to the respondents not to proceed further to the selection of Kisan Seva Kendra Operators for Kalikiri Mandal of Chittoor District. Heard Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. The petitioners averred in their affidavit that the respondents issued a notification published in newspapers on 29.11.2007 inviting applications to set up Kisan Seva Kendras (for short ‘KSK’) at various locations in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Kalikiri is shown as one of the places in Pileru Mandal for establishment of one such KSK. The petitioners alleged that since Kalikiri is a separate Mandal, they were under the impression that the respondents intended to set up a KSK for Pileru Mandal and hence, they did not apply in response to the said notification. They averred that in the second week of March, 2008 when the officials of the respondents came to Kalikiri Mandal Head Quarters for conducting survey, it has come to light that they are intending to set up KSK at Kalikiri Mandal Head Quarters and immediately, they approached respondent No.3 to know about the details in the third week of March, 2008 and that the officials of respondent No.3 told the petitioners that they are intending to set up KSK at Kalikiri and to write a letter to respondent No.1 about the mistake occurred in the notice. The petitioners, therefore, filed this writ petition questioning the action of the respondents in seeking to go ahead with the selection of candidates for setting up KSK at Kalikiri. Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that column No.1 of the notification pertains to the name of the location and column No.2 refers to the name of the Mandal. He argued that Sl.No.172 pertains to Kalikiri KSK and in column No.1, the name ‘Kalikiri’ was mentioned, while in column No.2 relating to the name of the Mandal, the name ‘Pileru’ was mentioned. He submitted that the petitioners were under the impression that the proposed KSK was intended for Pileru Mandal and hence, the petitioners did not apply. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel. It is, no doubt, true that in column No.2, ‘Pileru’ was mentioned indicating that Kalikiri comes under Pileru Mandal. But, I fail to see any reason for the petitioners in not making applications, if they are interested in being appointed as KSK agents, when the notification clearly mentioned that Kalikiri is the place where KSK is proposed to be located. The petitioners claimed to be the residents of Kalikiri Village and Mandal and by a look at the notification, they would have very well known that mentioning of the name of Pileru in Column No.2 is an obvious mistake, because being natives of Kalikiri Village and Mandal, the petitioners are expected to know that the notified location ‘Kalikiri’ falls in Kalikiri Mandal itself and not Pileru Mandal. It is neither the pleaded case of the petitioners nor any material is filed by them to show that on seeing the notification, the petitioners made any representations to the respondents seeking clarification about the discrepancy between columns 1 and 2 of the notification. The fact that the petitioners claimed to have approached the respondents in March, 2008, while the last date for making application was 04.01.2008, itself shows that for the reasons best known to them, they failed to apply within the time stipulated and evidently, they want to take shelter under an obviously inadvertent mistake committed by the respondents in describing Kalikiri as falling in Pileru Mandal. It is not the case of the petitioners that there is another place with the same name of Kalikiri in Pileru Mandal. The petitioners failed to explain the reason why they have not applied even assuming that there was a mistake in describing Kalikiri location as falling in Pileru Mandal. The fact that the notification clearly mentioned Kalikiri as the location belies the plea of the petitioners that they were under the impression that the agency was notified for Pileru Mandal and not for Kalikiri Mandal. On the premises as above, the petitioners failed to make out any case for this Court to interfere with the rights of the respondents to appoint KSK agent for Kalikiri location by exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.10749 of 2008 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 16th APRIL, 2008 Note: issue c.c. by 21.04.2008. B/o kvni