IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 499 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 12/03/2008 in WP NO : 1121 OF 2003 on the file of the High Court.) Between: S.Saraswathi D/o. Ramaiah R/o. H.No.3-73, Husbanad (P&M), Karimnagar District-505467. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Union of India Rep by its Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas GOI, Sastri bhavan, New Delhi. 2 The Area Marketing Manager(Retail), Bharath Petroleum corporation Ltd., S.D.Road, Secunderabad-500003. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.RAMACHANDAR RAO VEMUGANTI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Anil R. Dave, CJ) By virtue of this appeal, the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.1121 of 2003, dated 12-3-2008 has been challenged. The appellant-original petitioner has applied for a retail outlet dealership at Musthabad. Her case was considered, but she was not given the dealership. The validity of the process of selection was challenged before the Honourable Supreme Court and ultimately the entire process was quashed and set aside, whereby the person who was selected as a dealer by the respondent-Corporation was not given the dealership. The case of the appellant-petitioner is that there is a provision that once a person who has not been appointed as a dealer, then the one who is next in the panel should be given the dealership and therefore, the appellant should have been given the dealership. We are not in agreement with the aforestated submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant for the reason that the process of selection has been set aside and thereafter another process of selection was initiated by issuance of a notification dated 19-11-2005. In pursuance of the said notification, the process had been continued and some selections have also been made. It is not in dispute that the subsequent process has not been challenged by the appellant. In the aforestated circumstances, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge, whereby the petition filed by the appellant is rejected. The appeal is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. _____________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ __________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 2nd May, 2008 GRR To 1. 2.2 CD copies