IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No. 25973 of 2007 Between: Smt.M.Santhamma W/o.Reddeppa R/o.Pallavolu Kaspa village Kalikiri Mandal Chittoor District ... PETITIONER AND 1) Government of India., rep.by its Secretary, union of petroleum & Natural gas, Sastry Bhavan, New Delhi 2) The Territory manager, Chennai Territory Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., J/1 J-6, Phase-II, SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Gummadipundi-705201 3) S.R.V.Bharat Gas Enterprises, rep. by its Prop. K.Subba Rao Kalikiri village & Mandal, Chittoor District ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not following the guidelines prescribed by the 1st respondent for selling the Domestic LPG Cylinders is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to sell the Domestic LPG cylinders in uniform rate of BPCL & IOC companies operating in the common market at Kalikiri Mandal Since the 2nd respondent is charging the Domestic LPG Cylinders at Kalikiri for higher rates than the IOC Domestic LPG Cylinders of Kalakada of Chittoor District. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.S.V.INDIRA Counsel for Respondent No.1: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL) Counsel for Respondent No.2: MR.C.R. SRIDHARAN Counsel for Respondent No.3: MR.S.M. SUBHAN The Court made the following: O R D E R: (Per Shri Anil R. Dave, Chief Justice) 1. In this public interest litigation, the petitioner has made a grievance with regard to pricing of domestic Liqueﬁed Petroleum Gas (LPG). 2. It is the case of the petitioner that two diﬀerent companies are selling domestic LPG at diﬀerent rates at diﬀerent places and, according to the petitioner, domestic LPG being an essential commodity, such a thing should not be permitted. 3. Counter-aﬃdavit has been ﬁled by respondent No.2. 4. Upon perusal of the counter-aﬃdavit, it is clear that guidelines have been given by the Union of India with regard to sale of domestic LPG. Pricing policy has also been set up, but because of several factors, there is variation in the ultimate price at which the domestic LPG is sold to the consumer. Location of the bottling plant, amount of local taxes, transportation charges etc. also contribute to the ultimate price, which is ﬁxed for sale of domestic LPG to the ﬁnal consumer. Because of diﬀerent geographical locations, diﬀerent rates of taxes, diﬀerent cost of transportation etc. there is some variation in prices of domestic LPG sold by different companies. The variation is around 3%. 5. Looking to the facts of the case, in our opinion, it cannot be said that sale of domestic LPG at a higher rate by one of the companies is improper or illegal. We do not ﬁnd any substance in the petition and it is, therefore, rejected with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ September 01, 2008 R. SUBHASH REDDY, J svs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}