APHCO10191822025 lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADE§]± AT AMARAVATl TUESDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, THE CHIEF JUSTICE, AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI , WRIT APPEAL NO: 534 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order in w.p.No.10000-6f 2024 dated 03.Oi .2025 on the file of the High Court. Betwee n : 1. M/s Sri Seetharama Filling StationH Having its Regd. Office at #36-45- ll, lnnispeta, Main Road, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, Rep. by its Managing Partner, N.V.V. Jagan Mohan Reddy, 2. N.V.V. Jagan Mohan Reddyu S/o late Koti Reddy, aged about 48 years, R/o D.No.86-2-27/6, Sangeetha Venkat Reddy Street, Manthena Gardens, Rajamahendravaram. 3. N. SakuntalaH W/o N.V.V. Jagan Mohan Reddy, aged about 48 years, R/o D.No.86-2-27/6, Sangeetha Venkat Reddy Street, Manthena Gardens, Rajamahendravaram. ...Petitioners , AND 1. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, G-9, Ali Yavar Jung, Marg, Bandra (East) Mumbai, Rep. by its Managing Director. 2. The Deputy General Manager Marketing Division, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, 8th Floor, LIC Building, Visakhapatnam. , IA 3. The Indian Oil CorporatI'On Limited, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh State Office, Indian Oil Bhawan, Fatehbagh, Moosapet, Kukatpalli Industrial Estate, Hyderabad, Rep. by its State Head. ...Respondents~' NO:1 OF2025- /- Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavI't filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to make any permanent arrangements by appointing third parties in the place of the lst petitioner for the Petroleum Out- let situated at Kotipalli Bus Stand, Rajamahendravaram pending disposal of the WritAppeal. r~ Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI V V N NARAYANA RAO ~ Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SAI SANJAY SURANENI ~ The Court made the following order: APHCO10191822O25 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Bench Sr|No:- 82 AT AMARAVATl WRIT APPEAL NO: 534 of 2025 M/s Sri Seetharama Filling Station, and Others Vs- The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd and Others Advocate for Appellants: Advocate for Respondents: i i -..--------I [3483] ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) ********** Mr. O. Manoher Reddy, Senior Counsel, appearing vice Mr. V V N Narayana Rao Mr. Sai Sanjay Suraneni CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CllEEMALAPATI DATE : 22ndJuly2025 Per PHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ: The present writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 05.03.2025, rendered in W.P. No,10000 of 2024. The writ petition has been dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- on the ground that the petitioners had sought a writ of manclamus suppressing material facts in the affidavit filed along with the writ petition about the continuation of arbitration proceedings and change of Arbitrator. 2. The writ petition was filed by the petitioners challenging the order of termination of the RO clealership agreement through the impugned 2 . HCJ&RC,J W.A. No:534 of 2025 Proceedings, dated 18.05.2023. Before the filing of the writ petition, the Petitioners had also filed ArbI'tratl'On Application No.47 of 2023 under Section ll(5) & (6) of the Arbitration and conciliation Act,1996, and sought the appointment of an Arbitrator. The said application was allowed by vl'rfue of order, dated 01.12.2023, and Justice D. V. S. S. Somayajulu, former Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, was appointed as a sole Arbitrator. The said Arbitrator, however, declined to enter upon the reference and it is in that context that the petI'tiOnerS Claim that they were advI-Sed tO file the writ petition to challenge the order of terminatI'On, dated 18.05.2023, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. lt is not out of place to mention here that the writ petition came to be filed by the petitioners on 22.04.2024 by which date Justice K. Vijaya Lakshmi, former Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, was already appointed as an Arbitrator in place of Justice D. V. S. S. Somayajulu, by virtue of order, dated 23.02.2024. Thereafter, an interim order came to be passed on 29.04.2024 by the learned single Judge of this Court. 3. On the mattercoming up subsequently before the learned single Judge, the order impugned came to be passed and hence, the present writ appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the dismissal of the wrI't Petition prevents the writ petitioners/appellants herein even to take resort to the remedy of arbitration. On the issue of suppression of facts before HCJ&RC,J W.A. No:534 of 2025 the learned single Judge, it was sought to be urged that in fact there was no suppression and that the factum of appointment of Justice K. Vijaya Lakshmi came to the knowledge of the petitioners only when a notice was issued by the newly appointed Arbitrator, dated 26.04.2024. lt is not out of place to mention that the Petitioners even Went tO the extent of addressing a letter, dated o8.05.2024, on receipt of the notice'from the Arbitrator, dated 26.04.2024, seeking termination of arbitration proceedings. The learned single Judge held this to be a strategic move on the part of the petitioners as the petitioners had already obtained an interim order by suppressing material facts and misleading the Court. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants. 6. In our opinion, there was no occasion for the appellants to have preferred the writ petition only because the Arbitrator appointed in the application filed by the appellants, had declined to enter upon the reference. Necessary course of action ought to have been for appointment of a substitute Arbitrator. From the record, it appears that on receipt of the communic,ation from Justice D. V. S. S. SQmayajulu, the matter was taken up by the Court and by virtue of orde,r, dated 23.02.2024, Justice K. Vijaya Lakshmi, a former Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, came to be appointed. While it may be true that on 23.02.2024, learned counsel for the parties were not present and :.i. :drrf .-.,' , .--*r' I ./ 4 w.A. No:H5S2 gfR2S,2= the order came to be passed only on the communication of Justice D. V. S. S. Somayajulu, yet the manner in which the petitioners had proceeded in the matter to file a writ petition even when Justice K. Vijaya Lakshmi had since been appointed by virtue of order, dated 23.02.2024, goes to show that this was a sharp practice, which ought not to have been resorted to by the Petitioners, more SO, When the writ petitioners had already resorted to the remedy of arbitration for resolution of the disputes. 7. We, therefore, find no merit I-n the Present Writ appeal, which is accordingly dI'SmiSSed With Costs, enhanced from Rs.10,000/-to Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only), to be paid by the appellants within two weeks from today, to the account of A.P. State Legal Services Authority, which shall be utILlized for the benefit of the children with visual or hearing impairments. we, however, make it clear that the dismissal of the writ petition and the present appeal Shall not bar the appellants from approaching the Arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes which have been referred. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. MEMO OF COSTS H4HQi_ cost QuantffI-ed By Court That the Appellants are dlrected to pay costs enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.1,OO,OOO/-(Rupees one lakh only) to be payable to the account of AP state Legal servICeS Authority, Secretarl-at, Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathl wI-th,-n a period of two weeks from today. To] Sd/-M.RAMESH BABU //TRUECOPY// DEPU2g=ffi SECTION OFFICER 1. The Manag,'ng partner, N.V.V. Jagan Mohan Reddy, M/s sri seetharama Filling slat,onu Having Its Regd offICe at #36-45-ll, Innlspeta, Maln Road, RaJ'amahendravaram, East Godavarj Dl-strI-Ct, 2. N.V.V. Jagan Mohan Reddyu S/o late Koti Reddy, aged about 48 years, R/o D.No.86-2-27/6, Sangeetha Venkat Reddy Street, Manthena Gardens, RajamahendraVaram. 3. N. Sakuntalau W/o N.V.V. Jagan Mohan Reddy, aged about 48 years, R/a D.No.86-2-27/6, Sangeetha Venkat Reddy Street, Manthena Gardens, RajamahendraVaram. 4. The Secretary, Legal Services Authority, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravath-I. 5. One CC to Sri. V V N Narayana Rao Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri. Sai Sanjay Suraneni Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies GSC .''^ '. . .\ HIGH COURT DATED:22/07/2025 ORDER WA NO. 534 OF 2025 DISMISSING THE WA WITH COSTS '\_' I '`TrT\__-'._I-____''iI\l *|. `` i \ \ .'r]:- ``#q5faT