APHC010168342013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 12785/2013 Between: 1. NARISETTI MURALI, NELLROE DT., S/O KRISHNAIAH, AGED 34 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O DARGA STREET, DORAVARISATRAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. M D BPCL MUMBAI, REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, REGD. OFFICE AT BHARAT BHAVAN, 4 & 6, CURRIMBHOY ROAD, BALLARD ESTATE, P.B.NO.688, MUMBAI. 2. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, REP.BY ITS TERRITORY MANAGER (LPG), CHENNAI LPG BOTTLING PLANT, J146, SIPCOT INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, NEW GUMMIDIPOONDI, TAMIL NADU. 3. SMT VANKA MADHAVI, W/O SUDHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O H.NO.1-13 MINAMANAMUDI VILLAGE, DORAVARISATRAM MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 1st and 2nd respondents in rejecting the petitioner's candidature for LPG dealership under Rajiv Gandhi LPG Vitrak (RGGLB) scheme vide Letter reference No:CHDS01 dated 20.2.2013 on the ground that the petitioner does not own land and trying to allot the dealership to the 3rd respondent under Rajiv Gandhi LPG Vitrak (RGGLB) scheme as illegal, arbitrary, malafide and contrary to the guidelines under the said scheme and further direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to award the dealership to the petitioner and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 15745 OF 2013 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim stay of all further proceedings in relation to the appointment of LPG dealer under the Rajiv GandhiLPG Vitrak (RGGLB) scheme in relation to the Doravarisatram Village/ Gram Panchayat and Mandal, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass IA NO: 4 OF 2013(WPMP 95299 OF 2013 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V SESHA KUMARI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. O MANOHER REDDY The Court made the following ORDER: Ms. Bindu, learned counsel, representing Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, appeared virtually and submitted that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication. Recording the submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Dated: 28.08.2025 KAS