THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.10030 OF 2011 Dated: 19.04.2011 Between: Sabbavarapu Vijayalakshmi … Petitioner And 1. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, Visakhapatnam, Rep. by its Divisional Manager (Marketing), Vikhapatnam., and 4 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.10030 OF 2011 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the 1st respondent in accepting the lease of the land in Sy.No.134/1 and Sy.No.129/2 of Sabbavaram of Visakhapatnam to an extent of Ac.0-65 cents from the respondents 3 & 4 for establishment of a Petrol Pump Outlet is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner claims that she is the joint owner of the above said Ac.0-65 cents of land situated in Sy.Nos.134/1 and 129/2 of Sabbavaram. It is alleged that the respondents 3 and 4 offered the said land to the 1st respondent Corporation on lease for establishment of a retail outlet misrepresenting that they are the absolute owners. It is also alleged that though the petitioner raised objections, the 1st respondent did not consider the same and the 2nd respondent issued No Objection Certificate without making any enquiry. Sri Toom Srinivas, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent Corporation, while placing before this Court the proceedings of the Collector and District Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, dated 7.3.2011 granting No Objection Certificate for installation of storage tank in Sabbavaram Mandal, submitted that the sanction was accorded for installation of storage tank in Sy.No.130/2 in respect of an extent of Ac.0-22 cents and the land claimed by the petitioner in Sy.Nos.134/1 and 129/2 has nothing to do with the land upon which the Corporation is proposing to install the storage tank. A perusal of the proceedings dated 7.3.2011 shows that the No Objection Certificate was issued to the 1st respondent Corporation for installation of HSD & MS Storage Tanks at Sy.No.130/2 of Sabbavaram in an extent of Ac.0-22 cents. Hence, on the face of it, the allegation made by the petitioner is without any basis. Thus there is no cause of action for the present Writ Petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 19.04.2011 gbs