HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY Dated: 19-01-2010 WRIT APPEAL No. 1479 OF 2009 Between: Irri Tataji ... APPELLANT AND The Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum. Oil & Natural Gas, Sastry Bhavan, New Delhi, rep., by its Secretary and five others ... RESPONDENTS HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1479 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (per Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J) This writ appeal is filed against order dated 12-11-2009 in Writ Petition No. 2364 of 2009, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. The appellant was selected as a dealer for operating a retail outlet established by respondent No. 2 – Corporation at a place called Kalaparru Village, Pedapadu Mandal, West Godavari District. In pursuance of the said selection, a contract was entered into for running the retail outlet for a period of one year. During the currency of the said contract, respondent No.6 was selected as a permanent dealer in respect of a site, which was proposed to be used for running the retail outlet in the same district viz., Krishna. As the proposed site could not be made available to accommodate respondent No.6, he was given the dealership of the retail outlet in respect of which the appellant was the dealer. The appellant questioned this action of respondent No.2 by filing Writ Petition No. 2364 of 2009. The learned single Judge dismissed said writ petition. Having carefully gone through the reasoning contained in the order under appeal, we are of the opinion that the learned single Judge has not committed any error in dismissing the writ petition because the contract was entered into with the appellant only for a period of one year. Sri P. Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the appellant however has placed reliance on clause iv of the policy dated 06-09-1996 issued by respondent No.1 to contend that the appellant is entitled to hold the dealership for a period of three years at the first instance. We are unable to accept this contention of the learned counsel because the said clause has not been couched in mandatory terms and it is only stated therein that the contract may preferably be given for a period of three years at the first instance instead of one year. It is not the pleaded case of the appellant that respondent No.2 has issued the notification inviting applications for a period of three years. Admittedly, the period for which the contract was entered into was only one year. Evidently, the appellant has entered into the contract without any protest or demur. Therefore, the appellant cannot claim any right contrary to the terms of the contract. As the contract period of one year had expired, respondent No.2 is entitled to entrust the dealership to any person of its choice. In exercise of the said discretion, respondent No.2 has entrusted the retail outlet to respondent No.6 who was selected as a permanent dealer in respect of a site which was proposed in the same district. Therefore, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned single Judge in dismissing the writ petition. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the appeal, WAMP No. 3086 of 2009, filed by the appellant for interim relief, is also dismissed. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 19-01-2010 ks