IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND NINE WRIT PETITION No.5070 of 2004 Between: M/s. Bhaskar Agencies LPG Distributor HP Gas rep., by B. Lakshmikantha Reddy TTD Kalyana Mandapam Road, Yemmiganur, Kurnool District. … Petitioner And Union of India, rep., by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, Central Secretariat, New Delhi & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : None Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri Thoom Srinivas This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5070 of 2004 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside notification dated 06.02.2004, whereby respondent No.2 notified LPG dealership in respect of Yemmignur, Kodumuru and C.Belagal Villages in Kurnool District. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. Heard Sri Thoom Srinivas, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the record. The petitioner is a distributor of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation for Yemmignur Village and Mandal, Krunool District. By the impugned notification, respondent No.2 proposed to allot the LPG dealership of the Corporation in respect of Yemmignur, Kodumuru and C.Belagal villages. The challenge to this notification has been mounted mainly on the ground that the proposed appointment of dealer is contrary to the marketing guidelines governing respondent No.2 Corporation. This Court in M/s. Padmavathi Filling Station, Indian Oil Dealer, Tiruttani-Tirupathi Road, Gajulmandyam, Tirupati vs. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited[1] by its order dated 22.12.2000 held that an existing dealer has no locus to question the notification issued by the Corporation inviting applications from the interested parties for the purpose of establishing any outlet. This Court referred to the observations made by it in Writ Petition No.18310 of 1996 dated 02.09.1996 to the effect that no relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is available even if the Corporation violated the norms, as they are non-statutory in character and are mere guidelines to be observed by the oil companies which do not confer any statutory or legally enforceable rights in favour of the licencees such as the petitioner. In view of the settled legal position referred to above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.6623 of 2004 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 26.11.2009 ES [1] Writ Petition No.5959 of 1998