IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.3286 of 2001 Between: Iska Bhasker Reddy, S/o. I. Venkatrami Reddy, R/o. Nakkavanipalem, Seethammadara, Visakhapatnam. ..... Petitioner AND Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Senior Regional Manager (Retail Sale) Visakha Regional Office, Petro Nilayam, Waltair Park, VISAKHAPATNAM. .....Respondent 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction or directions declaring the Notiﬁcation issued by the Respondent dated 9-9-2000 calling for applications for Dealership in Retail Outlets at AGANAMPUDI, Visakhapatnam District as arbitrary, unreasonable and unconstitutional and to issue a consequential direction to the Respondent to issue a fresh Notiﬁcation calling for Application for appointment as Dealer for the Retail Outlet at Lankalapalem, Visakhapatnam District. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent: MR.M.RAVINDRANATH REDDY The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.3286 of 2001 ORDER: Petitioner is resident of Nakkavaripalem, Visakhapatnam District. He is aggrieved by the action of respondent in issuing notiﬁcation dated 09.9.2000 inviting applications for appointment of dealers for petroleum outlets at ﬁve places including Aganampudi Revenue District, which is not a reserved position. Petitioner alleges that he wanted a petroleum outlet at Lankalapalem in Paravada Mandal. Therefore pursuant to notiﬁcation referred to herein above, he did not apply. He approached respondent to enquire likelihood of another notiﬁcation advertising Lankalapalem outlet. It appears that concerned officials of respondent informed that notification relating to Aganampudi itself has to be read as notiﬁcation for Lankalapalem retail outlet and that there would not be a separate notiﬁcation for outlet at Lankalapalem. Petitioner contends that when respondent intended Aganampudi outlet also as outlet for Lankalapalem, they ought to have mentioned the same more clearly. As notiﬁcation is vague, petitioner lost opportunity and therefore he contends that action of respondent is illegal. After hearing learned Counsel for petitioner and giving anxious consideration, this Court is not able to countenance any of the submissions. When respondent issued notiﬁcation inviting applications for appointment of dealership at Aganampudi, Court cannot compel to also issue a notiﬁcation for Lankalapalem. Secondly except stating in the aﬃdavit that oﬃcials of respondent informed about true purport of notiﬁcation for Aganampudi as also being for Lankalapalem, no other material is placed. Even otherwise, there would be one notiﬁcation inviting application for dealership for two out lets, for two areas and also for two districts. Whether or not to open petroleum/diesel outlet is a business proposition, which depends on many factors and circumstances. The best decision in these matters would be that of oil marketing companies. The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. ______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) September 12, 2008 YS To 1. The Senior Regional Manager (Retail Sale), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Visakha Regional Office, Petro Nilayam, Waltair Park, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. Two C.D. Copies.