IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.25192 of 2011 BETWEEN P. Veera Reddy. ... PETITIONER AND Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Secunderabad and two others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. J. SESHAGIRI RAO Counsel for the Respondents: MR. O.MANOHER REDDY MR. T. SRINIVAS The Court made the following order: ORDER: Petitioner and the third respondent appeared and contested for the selection of dealership of retail petroleum outlet at Konakanamitla Village and Mandal, Prakasam District. Petitioner as well as the third respondent were interviewed and while the petitioner ranked second, the third respondent ranked first as per evaluation. The said evaluation, so far as the third respondent is concerned, is questioned by the petitioner on the ground that he has been wrongly awarded 20 marks as resident of concerned revenue village and according to the petitioner, he is not entitled to any marks on that ground, as he is a resident of a different village away from the village in question. On coming to know that respondents 1 and 2 are likely to issue letter of intent to the third respondent, the petitioner has given a legal notice to respondents 1 and 2 dated 05.07.2011. According to the petitioner no action was taken by respondents 1 and 2 thereafter and consequently, he has filed the present writ petition. 2. On 12.09.2011, when this matter was heard, the learned standing counsel was directed to get instructions and file counter. 3. Today, the learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2 as well as the learned counsel for third respondent appear and submit that the letter of intent dated 17.08.2011 is already given to the third respondent. It is also contended that subsequent to the petitioner’s notice, respondents 1 and 2 have written to the Tahsildar to reconfirm the residential certificate given to the third respondent and as per the instructions of respondents 1 and 2, the Tahsildar has confirmed the certificate given to the third respondent earlier. 4. However, it is not in dispute that the enquiry, which the respondents 1 and 2 are required to complete as against the complaint made by the petitioner, has to be done after notice to the petitioner as well as the third respondent and after hearing both of them. Petitioner as well as the third respondent is also entitled to know the additional material, if any, collected by respondents 1 and 2 for the purpose of the said enquiry. It is stated by the learned standing counsel that letter of appointment has not been given to the third respondent. 5. In the circumstances, therefore, I deem it appropriate to direct respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner’s complaint regarding evaluation of petitioner as well as third respondent in accordance with the norms of respondents 1 and 2 after notice and after hearing the petitioner as well as the third respondent, as directed above and pass appropriate orders. The letter of intent given to the third respondent and further course of action shall abide the result of the final decision of the respondent – corporation. The writ petition is disposed with the directions as above. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 16, 2011 DSK