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 : 15333 of 2002 Between: 1 Penubala Service Station Rep. by its Proprietor, P. Chandrasekhar Between Pitchatur and Koppedu Chittoor District 2 S.P.S. Agencies Rep. by its Proprietor, K. Srinivas Kumar Nagalapuram Chittoor District ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Union of India Rep. by its Secretary Ministry of Petroleum Central Secretariat Sastry Bhavar New Delhi 2 The District Collector Chittoor Chittoor District 3 Indian Oil Corporation Rep. by its Depot Manager Tada Nellore District 4 Indian Oil Corporation Rep. by its Senior Divisional Manager Vijayawada .....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 any appropriate Writ, order or direction preferably a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in cancelling the dealerships of the petitioners, by virtue of the impugned proceedings No. p-19011/4/2002-IOC dated 9/8/2002 as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and conseequently suspend the operation of the said proceedings and further direct the third respondent to permit the petitioners herein to conduct/transact business in terms of the dealership Agreement without stoppage of any benefits attached to the dealership Agreement, pending disposal of the above writ petition, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VENUGOPAL 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 petitioners seeking to declare the action of the respondents in canceling the dealerships of the petitioners 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 suspend the operation of the said proceedings and to direct the third respondent to permit the petitioners to transact the business in terms of the dealership agreement without stoppage of any benefits attached to the dealership agreement. The petitioners contended that the fourth respondent issued a notification on 16-07-2000, which was published in Hindu and Eenadu Daily Newspapers inviting applications for appointment of dealers to transact in petroleum products. In pursuance of the said notification, the petitioners made an application with requisite fees. The selection board scrutinized the applications and the interviews were conducted. The petitioners were issued a letter of appointment, dated 27-08-2001 for commencement of the business in the petroleum products, which were followed by entering into necessary agreements. The petitioners obtained the loans from banks and other financial institutions for carrying on the said business. But, by virtue of the impugned notification, the D.O.D. facility has been stopped. The first petitioner has been operating the petrol outlet from 02-09-2001, whereas the second petitioner is yet to commence. By virtue of the said notification, the third respondent stopped supplies. The petitioners, 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 Government of India is quashed. However, it is made clear that if the final appointment of the petitioners is under challenge, they 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 Central Secretariat Sastry Bhavar, New Delhi. 2. The District Collector Chittoor Chittoor District. 3. The Depot Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Tada Nellore District. 4. The Senior Divisional Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, Vijayawada. 5. 2 CCs to Mr.A.Rajashekar Reddy (Asst Solicitor Gen), High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT) 6. 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ESWAR} [1] (2003) 2 SCC 673