IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1090 OF 2000 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 29/06/2009 in WP NO : 14578 OF 1996 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Smt. K. Parameswaramma ... APPELLANT AND Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, 130/1, Sabastian Street, S.D. Road, Next to St. Patric School, Post Box No. 5, Secunderabad- 500003, rep., by its Chief Regional Manager, Retail, Secunderabad and two others ... RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: Sri M. Subba Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: Sri R. Raghunandan for Sri Thoom Srinivas The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) The appellant, original petitioner has been aggrieved by the order dated 29-06-2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 10208 of 2008. 2. The appellant had given an application for being appointed as a retail outlet dealer to respondent No.1 – Corporation. It was necessary that the applicant should be either owner of the land where the retail outlet can be set up or should procure consent of the landowner, whose land is to be used for the purpose of setting up retail outlet. According to Clause 9 (g) and (h) of the conditions on which a retail outlet dealer was to be appointed, no addition/deletion/alteration was to be permitted in the application and no additional document of whatsoever type was to be accepted or considered after the cut off date for submission of the application. 3. It is an admitted fact that the appellant was not the owner of the land where retail outlet was to be set up, but she had proposed to set up retail outlet on the land belonging to her family. One of the owners of the land in question was her husband, but unfortunately, consent letter from the husband was not annexed to the application, which was a condition precedent. It is also an admitted fact that when the land in question was inspected by the representatives of respondent No. 1 – Corporation, the husband of the appellant was present and he had given his consent for permitting his land to be used for setting up a retail outlet. But, these things took place after the cut off date i.e., the date on which the application had been submitted by the appellant. After examining the application of the appellant, the same was rejected on the ground that she has not submitted consent letter of the owner of the land in question. 4. For the aforestated reason, the writ petition filed by the appellant questioning the rejection of her application had been rejected by the impugned order. 5. We have heard the learned advocates and have perused the relevant record including the Guidelines for Selection of Retail Outlet Dealers. 6. The learned advocate for the respondent – Corporation has submitted that the Corporation always adheres to the aforestated guidelines and no addition is permitted to the application after the cut off date and as the consent letter was not submitted before the cut off date, the application of the appellant had been rejected. It has been submitted by him that the guidelines referred to hereinabove are always complied with strictly and no leniency is shown in the matter so that the Corporation can have its stand consistent. 7. The learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that it was a small mistake, which had been committed by the appellant and she was ready and willing to submit the consent letter after she had been interviewed. In the circumstances, it has been submitted that some leniency should be shown and the respondent – Corporation be directed to appoint the appellant as a retail outlet dealer, especially when she was the only applicant. 8. It has been submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the Corporation that before the order was passed by the learned single Judge, notification inviting applications for retail outlet had already been published and along with the appellant another person had also applied for being appointed as a retail outlet dealer. In the circumstances, it would not be proper for the respondent – Corporation to reconsider the case of the appellant. 9. Upon hearing the learned advocates and looking to the facts of the case, in our opinion, it cannot be said that the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge is improper. The appeal is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 27th August, 2009 ks