IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.25583 of 2001 Between: Singareddi Harinath Reddy S/o.Veeraswamy Residing at Manukondavaripalem Village & Post, Chilakaluripeta , Guntur Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Chief General Manager S.V.Marg , Mumbai-400 038. 2 The Chairman, D.No.No.5-527/2 , Chennupathi Complex, 1st Floor , Ashok Nagar , Vijayawada. 3 The Regional Manager L.P.G.Regional Office Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., IDA , Kondapalli , Krishna Dist. 4 Kolli Srinivasa Rao S/o.Vengaiah C/o.Swathi Wines Bearing D.No.13-8-207, OPP: RTC Bus stand , G.T.Road Guntur. .....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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the 1st respondent in appointing the 4th respondent as L.P.G dealer of Chilakaluripet, Guntur District even though he is ineligible as illegal , arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment as LPG delaer at Chilakaluripet , Guntur District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.THOOMSRINIVAS The Court made the following: Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MADHURI} THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.25583 of 2001 ORDER: The petitioner questions the action of the 1st respondent- Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited in appointing the 4th respondent-Kolli Srinivasarao as L.P.G.dealer of Chilakalurpet, Guntur District on the ground that he is not eligible for appointment of the said dealership as per the conditions of eligibility published in the notiﬁcation as he is having income more than Rs.2 lakhs per annum and he is an accused in criminal case in Cr.No.9/2000 on the ﬁle of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chilakalurpet for pilferage of energy under Indian Electricity Act and he is having two liquor licences under the A.P.Excise Act viz., M/s.Aruna Wines and Swathi Wines at Guntur. Apart from that, the 4th respondent has invested huge sums in Sai Surya Cold Storage Private Limited. It is further stated that about the disqualiﬁcation of the 4th respondent, representations have been ﬁled, but the said representations have not been considered and no enquiry was conducted and therefore, the selection of the 4th respondent as L.P.G.Dealer is illegal and arbitrary. The 2nd respondent-Dealer Selection Board ﬁled a counter stating that interviews were conducted for award of L.P.G. Distributorship for Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited at Chilakalurpet, Andhra Pradesh on 24.01.2001 and the 4th respondent-Kolli Srinivasarao was empanelled as ﬁrst candidate in the merit panel, and the petitioner stood in the third place in the merit panel. As per the eligibility conditions prescribed and as per the guidelines, the candidates should not have annual income exceeding Rs.2 lakhs in the previous annual year and should not be convicted in any criminal case involving moral turpitude and economic oﬀences, and the candidate is required to submit an aﬃdavit about the details of the statement of income. But, it is stated that in fact, the petitioner has not made any representations before the Board on 10.02.2001, 12.02.2001, 27.02.2001 as alleged by the petitioner, but the Board received two telegrams dated 10.02.2001 and 17.02.2001 from one G.Sambi Reddy, S/o.Pitchi Reddy of Chilkaluiripet making certain allegations against the 4th respondent and against one Jaladi Ramarao, the second empanelled candidate. The said statements were forwarded by the Dealer Selection Board to the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited under covering letter dated 22.02.2001 and the 1st respondent enquired into the matter and submitted a report vide his letter dated 14.06.2001 which was forwarded to the Board by the Chief General Manager of L.P.G., Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vide its letter dated 25.06.2001. Thereafter only, the Board passed an order dated 09.08.2001 holding that there was no truth in the allegations made by Sambi Reddy against the ﬁrst two empanelled candidates. Accordingly, the letter of intent was issued by the 4th respondent by proceedings dated 19.10.2001. It is stated that the orders of this Court in W.P.8786/2001 directing to dispose of the representation dated 22.02.2001 is concerned, it is stated that no such representation has been received from the petitioner and therefore, the allegations made in the petition that the representation of the petitioner has not been considered is actually incorrect and untrue. The 4th respondent also ﬁled counter stating that no doubt he was having two wine shops viz. M/s.Aruna Wines and Swathi Wines. But in so far as Swathi wine shop is concerned, it was transferred in favour of one Eluri Subbarao and Smt.Pulivarthi Krishna Kumari pursuant to the application dated 20.05.2005 and the same was approved by the authorities transferring the licence much prior to the issuance of the notiﬁcation dated 26.08.2000 in question, inviting applications for dealership. In so far as the income is concerned, it is stated that his annual income is only Rs.1,36,990/- for the year 1999- 2000 as per the income tax returns and the HUF income is also less than Rs.2 lakhs for the ﬁnancial year 1999-2000, and in so far as the investment in Sai Surya Cold Storage Private Limited is concerned, it is submitted that he got 4000 equity shares of Rs.100/- each, total shares worth Rs.4 lakhs and the said company itself started its construction in 2000 and completed the construction by the end of the year 2000 and commenced the commercial business in 2001 and no dividend has been received, and therefore, he is not concerned in the income derived out of the shares. It is stated that he is not at all an accused in Cr.No.9/2000 on the ﬁle of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chilakaluripet and the said allegation is totally false. In view of the aforesaid denial of all the allegations made against the empanelled candidates and in view of the counter allegations of the 2nd respondent that as per the enquiry report submitted by the 1st petitioner, the income of the 4th respondent is less than Rs.2 lakhs and he is not the accused in any of the crime, I am of the opinion that it is not correct to state that the 4th respondent is not entitled to award L.P.G.Dealership. Having regard to the facts of the case, I do not see any merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 27.08.2008 Dsr .... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Chief General Manager S.V.Marg , Mumbai-400 038. 2 The Chairman, D.No.No.5-527/2 , Chennupathi Complex, 1st Floor , Ashok Nagar , Vijayawada. 3 The Regional Manager L.P.G.Regional Office Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., IDA , Kondapalli , Krishna Dist. 4 2. 2CCs to 5. 2CD copies