IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.8744 of 2003 Between: 1 Uppari Laxmi (Consumer No. 323026), W/o. Bhoomaiah R/o. 5-25, Ibrahimpet, Banswada (Tq.), Nizamabad District. 2 D.Suvarna (Consumer No. 615949) W/o. Hanumandulu R/o. 1-37/4, Ibrahimpet, Banswada M., Nizamabad District. 3 B.Yadamma (Consumer No. 322882) W/o. Sayagoud R/o. 5-44, Ibrahimpet, Banswada Mandal, Nizamabad District. 4 G.Manevva (Consumer No. 622833) W/o. Golla Sailoo R/o. 4-9, Ibrahimpet, Banswada Mandal, Nizamabad District. 5 T. Savitri (Consumer No. 620270) W/o. Vara Goud R/o. 4-7, Ibrahimpet, Banswada Mandal, Nizamabad District. 6 Sharada (Consumer No. 618214) W/o. Jayavant Rao R/o. 2-50/2, Pocharam Village, Banswada Mandal, Nizamabad District. 7 Yashoda (Consumer Noi. 618208) W/o. Chander R/o.21-51/6, Pocharam Village, Banswada Mandal, Nizamabad District. 8 Savithri (Consumer No. 618038) W/o. Chander R/o. 2-40/3, Pocharam Village, Banswada Mandal, Nizamabad District. 9 V.Rajamani (Consumer No. 615290) W/o. Dattaiah R/o. 5-1-20, Old Banswada, Nizamabad. 10 Dhanalaxmi (Consumer No. 615828) W/o. Somarajulu R/o. 4-3-93, Banswada, Nizamabad District. 11 K.Shiv Kumar (consumer No. 602492) 1-1-14, Srirama Colony, Banswada, Nizamabad District. 12 G.Ravinder (Consumer No. 619987) S/o. Boomaiah R/o. 1-4-13/1, Kot Galli, Banswada, Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The District Collector, (Civil Supplies), Nizamabad, Nizamabad District. 2 The A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its District Manager, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District. 3 M/s. Leela Gas Agencies, Rep. by its Proprietor K.Leela Kumari R/o. Banswada, Nizamabad District. 4 M/s Sai Baba Agencies Rep. by its Proprietor K.Harinath R/o. Bhodan, Nizamabad District. 5 The Sales Officers, L.P.G., H.P.C.L., Regional Office, Cherlapally, Hyderabad. 6 The Deputy Manager, L.P.G.-S., I.B.P., Naspur Building, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Manadmus declaring the action of respondents No.1 5 and 6 in issuing instructions and transferring the petitioners from 4th respondent to 3rd respondent and for the purpose of taking delivery of refill cylinders from 3rd respondent is illegal and arbitrary and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.8744 of 2003 ORDER: It is the case of the petitioners that they are members of DWCRA group of their respective villages and they were allotted L.P. Gas connections. The 2nd respondent was appointed as an agent for distribution of L.P. Gas connections. Thereafter, the 4th respondent was entrusted with release of new connections and supply of refills. It is the grievance of the petitioners that they were asked to refill the cylinders from the 3rd respondent instead of the 4th respondent, and as there are number of complaints against the 3rd respondent in regard to supply of new L.P.Gas connections and refill the cylinders to the allottees, they may be continued to refill the cylinders from the 4th respondent. A counter has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent to the effect that the extension counter of the 4th respondent was closed from 23-04-2003 and that it handed over a list of 3316 LPG consumers to the 3rd respondent and that the complaints received against the 3rd respondent were got enquired into from time to time and the allegations levelled against it are not proved. As the extension counter of the 4th respondent was closed, the question of continuing the writ petitioners with the 4th respondent does not arise. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that on appointment of the 3rd respondent as regular agency, extension counter of the 4th respondent at Banswada has been closed. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled for any relief as sought for in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 29-04-2008 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MADHURI}