IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15696 of 2002 Between: Kamishetti Venkateswar Rao Proprietor: Kamishetti Petro Products Narsampet Warangal District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of India Rep. by its Joint Secretary Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas New Delhi 2 Indian Oil Corporation Limited Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director, Kolkatta 3 Sr. Divisional Manager Indian Oil Corporation Limited Secunderabad Divisional Office Office Situated at Himayathnagar HYderabad 4 Dy. General Manager (MO) Indian Oil Corporation Limited A.P. State Office Situated at Himayathnagar Hyderabad 5 Director Marketing Indian Oil Corporation Limited New Delhi ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: None appeared Counsel for respondent No.1: None appeared Counsel for respondents 2 to 5: SRI TOOM SRINIVAS (SC for Indian Oil Corporation) The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or writs, order or direction, declaring the action of the 1st respondent in reviewing the allotment of petrol pump dealership made since January, 2000 as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and in utter violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently quash the instructions issued in the impugned proceeding dated 09.08.2002 vide its letter No.P.19011/4/2002/IOC on the file of the 1st respondent by allowing the petitioner to continue to be as dealer.” There has been no representation for the petitioner on 18-03- 2009 and also today. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in default. Even otherwise, the writ petition has become infructuous in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Onkar Lal Bajaj and others vs. Union of India and others[1], wherein the same proceeding, which is the subject matter of this writ petition, fell for consideration of the Supreme Court, which disposed of the case with certain directions. Sri Toom Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, submits that in view of the said judgment, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for consideration. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 19th March, 2009 vrn [1] (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 673