Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 19782 (AP)

Smt.Vikram Sridevi v. The Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Limited

WP/32698/2011 · 2025-08-19

Sumathi Jagadam

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010277152011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE [3459] PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION No.32698 OF 2011 Between: Smt. Vikram Sridevi, W/o. Vikram Nagabhushanam, R/o. Pamidipadu Village, Korisipadu Mandal, Prakasam District. --- Petitioner And 1. The Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Rep. by its Head, South Central Zone - Retail, 111, Chandraolok Complex, 1st Floor, Opp.Paradise Hotel, S.D.Road, Hyderabad. 2. The Senior Regional Manager, Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Mangalagiri Road, Near Saibaba Temple, Tadepalli Village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District. 3. Sri T. Ramana Babu, S/o. Not Known to Petitioner, Chief Manager, Network Planning, HPCL South Central Zone - Retail, 111, Chandraolok Complex, 1st Floor, Opp.Paradise Hotel, S.D.Road, Hyderabad. 4. Sri U.N.Murthy, S/o. Not Known to Petitioner, Senior Manager, Legal, HPCL South Central Zone - Retail, 111, Chandraolok Complex, 1st Floor, Opp.Paradise Hotel, S.D.Road, Hyderabad. 5. Sri G. Chiranjeevi, S/o. Not Known to Petitioner, Head - South Central Zone, HPCL South Central Zone - Retail, 111, Chandraolok Complex, 1st Floor, Opp.Paradise Hotel, S.D.Road, Hyderabad. JS,J WP No.32698/2011 2 6. Sri Kancherla Suresh, S/o. Sudhakar Rao, R/o. Prasargula Padu Village, Korsapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. --- Respondents 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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in selecting the 6th respondent pursuant to the Notification dated 06-09-2010, and the subsequent interview dt.25-01-2011, for award of their retail outlet dealership (Petrol Pump) at Pamidipadu location, Korisipadu Mandal in Prakasam District, and the order dated 17.10.2011 passed by the respondents 2 to 5 closing the petitioners complaint, as illegal arbitrary, capricious, vitiated by fraud and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and consequently to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner for award of the dealership. IA No.1 OF 2011 (WPMP 40648 OF 2011) 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 direct the respondents 1 & 2 not to award the retail outlet dealership (petrol pump) including issuance of letter of intent, at Pamidipadu location Korisipadu Mandal in Prakasam District, in favor of 6th respondent, pending disposal of the Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: P V A PADMANABHAM Counsel for the Respondent(S):] 1. M RAVINDRANATH REDDY 2. J U M V PRASAD The Court made the following: JS,J WP No.32698/2011 3 ORDER: As seen from the proceeding sheet, dated 01.03.2013, it was recorded that the 6th respondent was awarded letter of intent. In view of the same, the cause in this Writ Petition does not survive for adjudication and, accordingly, 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 Date: 20.08.2025 DSH