IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 15580 of 2002 Between: Smt. Sistla Sri Lakshmi W/o. Lakshminarayana R/o. 65, Pandu Rangapuram, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi. 2 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Area Marketing Manager, 45/A, S.D.Road, Secunderabad. 3 The Dealer Selection Board, Indian Oil Corporation, D.No. 5-527/2, Chennupati Complex, Sardar Road, Vijayawada, Krishna 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 to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in directing the oil companies to terminate the dealerships of the persons appointed pursuant to the selections made by the Dealer Selection Boards in Letter No.P.190114/4/2002 dt. 9.8.2002 as being illegal, arbitrary and ultravires of its power and consequently set aside the said letter and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.S.N.RAJU Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of the first respondent in directing the oil companies to terminate the dealerships of the persons appointed pursuant to the selections made by the Dealer Selection Board by virtue of the impugned proceedings, dated 09-08-2002 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequentially to set aside the said proceedings. The petitioners contended that the second respondent issued a notification on 31-12-1997 inviting applications for appointment of dealers to transact in petroleum products. In pursuance of the said notification, the petitioner made an application with requisite fees. The selection board scrutinized the applications and the interviews were conducted. After interview, the petitioner was declared to be the successful candidate and was placed at Serial No.1. But, by virtue of the impugned proceedings, dated 09-08-2002 to cancel all the selections made by the selection boards across the country from the year 2000 onwards and to cancel the dealership of petroleum, kerosene and LPG outlets. The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court seeking the reliefs as prayed for. Similar writ petition was disposed of by this Court through the order, dated 11-08-2003 in W.P.No.14697 of 2002, wherein this Court observed that: “The question raised in this Writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Onkar Lal Bajaj v. Union of India [1]. The Government of India filed a transfer petition under Article 139-A of the Constitution and the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to order transfer of similar writ petitions from the High Courts of Bombay, Delhi, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. The Supreme Court quashed the omnibus order dated 9-8-2002 by which the Government of India cancelled, all allotments made to the respective petroleum dealer outlets, LPG distributorships and SKL and LDO dealerships, which were allotted on the recommendations of the Dealer Selection Boards since 1-1-2000. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court appointed a Committee comprising Hon’ble Sri Justice S.C. Agarwal, a retired Judge of the Supreme Court and Hon’ble Sri Justice P.K. Bahri, a retired Judge of the Delhi High Court, to examine 413 cases of various dealers whose names were specifically mentioned in Indian Express newspaper from 2-8-2002 to 24-8-2002. The Supreme Court also directed all the High Courts to dispose of the writ petitions in terms of the judgment in Onkar Lal Bajaj v. Union of India (supra).” In view of the observation of this Court and the Judgment in ONKAR LAL BAJAJ V. UNION OF INDIA (1 supra), the impugned proceedings, dated 09-08-2002 issued by the first respondent is quashed. However, it is made clear that if the final appointment of the petitioner is under challenge, she can seek remedy by way of a representation or appeal before appropriate authority and this order shall be subject to the result of such proceedings. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. No order as to costs. __________________ DR. G. YETHIRAJULU, J Date:21-02-2008 YCR ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi. 2 The Area Marketing Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 45/A, S.D.Road, Secunderabad. 3 The Dealer Selection Board, Indian Oil Corporation, D.No. 5-527/2, Chennupati Complex, Sardar Road, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 4. 2 CCs to Mr.A.Rajashekar Reddy (Asst Solicitor Gen), High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT) 5. 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MADHURI [1] (2003) 2 SCC 673