IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 11935 of 2008 Between: Smt. S.Sanga Rani, D/o. S.Venkateswaralu, R/o. 5-1-8, Main road, Near Andhra Bank, Dornakal, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Rep by its Chairman, Having its registered office at G-9, All Yavar Jung Marg, Bandara East, Mumbai. 2 The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Rep by its General Manager, H.No.3-6-436, 2nd Floor, Naspur House, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad. 3 Sri J.Madhu Kumar, S/o. Not known, H.No.12-4-15, Papaiahpet Chaman, Warangal, Warangal District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in appointing the 3rd respondent as its LPG distributor at Dornakal, Warangal District as illegal, arbitrary and violative of article 14 of the constitution of India and pass such other or further orders Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.JAGADISH KUAMAR BATCHU Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.THOOMSRINIVAS The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.11935 OF 2008 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in appointing the 3rd respondent herein as LPG Distributor, Dornakal at Warangal District is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner herein is the existing dealer in LPG at Dornakal. The appointment of the 3rd respondent has been challenged primarily on the ground that the said appointment is contrary to the policy guidelines issued by the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas in the matter of appointment of dealers/distributors for LPG so as to maintain even distribution among all the Oil Companies taking into consideration the need in the locality as well as the viability of the distributorship. When the matter is taken up for consideration, it is brought to my notice that an identical question was considered by this Court in W.P.No.22372 of 2007 and batch and all the said writ petitions were dismissed by a common order dated 25.07.2008 rejecting the contentions raised by the petitioners therein. Since the petitioner herein is also similarly situated, the ratio laid down in the said batch of cases is squarely applicable and accordingly following the order in W.P.No.22372 of 2007 and batch, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 26.11.2008 klp