IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.3233 OF 2008 Between: Shaik Mahaboob Subani. … Petitioner AND The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Reptd., by its Chairman & Managing Director, Mumbai, Maharastra State and three others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri K.Ratanga Pani Reddy. Counsel for the respondents: Sri T.Srinivas for Sri P.V.Sanjay Kumar. This Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare order dated 9-2-2008 passed by respondent No.4, whereby the petitioner’s application for LPG Distributorship was not considered, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri K.Ratanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri T.Srinivas, learned counsel representing Sri P.V.Sanjay Kumar, for the respondents. The grievance of the petitioner in this Writ Petition is that respondent No.4 informed the petitioner that he is not eligible for applying for LPG Distributorship of Rapur, Nellore District, as he did not furnish DGR Certificate from the Defense Ministry before the last date for submission of his application. This Court on 18-2-2008, while admitting the Writ Petition, directed the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner for LPG Distributorship provided the petitioner submits DGR certificate at the time of interview. It has so transpired that interviews were held on 18-2-2008 and the petitioner has not attended the interview on the ground that he was under the bonafide impression that the interviews were scheduled to be held on 19-2-2008. The respondents came out with the stand that in the interviews held on 18-2-2008 the Committee did not find any suitable candidate for being appointed as the Distributor and, consequently, the respondents decided to issue a fresh advertisement for appointment of LPG Distributor for Rapur. In view of the fact that the petitioner failed to appear in the interview held by the respondents on 18-2-2008, I am not inclined to grant any direction to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner in pursuance of the notification issued earlier, which became abortive. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, since the learned counsel representing the respondents informed the Court that the respondents are intending to issue a fresh advertisement and that so far they have not taken any decision regarding the date on which such advertisement will be issued, the respondents are directed to issue a fresh advertisement within a reasonable time frame, which shall not be beyond two months from today. In that event, the petitioner shall be at liberty to apply afresh for LPG Distributorship. -------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J. DT.24-3-2008 MNR