IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28204 of 2008 Between: Saradha Filling Station, rep., by its Priprietor Tirupati, Chittoor District. … Petitioner And The Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Tirupati, Chittoor District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri T. Niranjan Reddy Counsel for the respondents: Sri C. Srinivas for Sri Thoom Srinivas This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28204 of 2008 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in insisting on the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.4,28,000/- alleged to be due from it for the financial year 2004-05, as arbitrary, illegal and against the Principles of Natural Justice. The petitioner sought for a direction to the respondents to supply the petroleum products to it without insisting on payment of the said amount. The petitioner, who, at an earlier point of time, managed the petroleum retail outlet run by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited on company owned and company operated (COCO) basis, was later appointed as dealer in respect of the same retail outlet. When the respondents insisted on the petitioner to remit a sum of Rs.4,28,000/- towards the value of one consignment on the ground that the said transaction, which took place on 28.09.2004, was not entered in the COCO account books, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. Its main grievance is that the respondents have unilaterally arrived at the conclusion that the said transaction has not been entered without giving it proper opportunity to reconcile the accounts. The learned counsel representing Sri Thoom Srinivas, learned Standing counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation appearing for the respondents, on instructions, submitted that the Corporation has no objection if its letter, dated 26.12.2008, addressed to the petitioner is treated as notice and take a fresh decision after the objections, if any filed by the petitioner, are considered. Sri T. Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, says that his client has no objection for this course suggested by the respondents. In the light of the above submissions of the learned counsel, the Writ Petition is disposed of without going into the merits of the case with the direction that letter, dated 26.12.2008, addressed on behalf of respondent No.1 Corporation to the petitioner be treated as show cause notice. The petitioner is permitted to file its objections, if any within four weeks from today. On receipt of the objections, the respondents shall give the petitioner an opportunity of reconciling with the account books, take a fresh decision and communicate the same to the petitioner. Till this exercise is completed, status quo as on today shall be maintained. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.36971 of 2008 and WVMP.No.3437 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 28.07.2011 ES