APHC010269522025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WP(PIL) NO: 113 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-55 [3584] Tokala Venkateswarlu, ...Petitioner Vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: NAGA PRAVEEN VANKAYALAPATI Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): GP FOR REVENUE, SAI SANJAY SURANENI CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 8th July 2026 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) Present writ petition by way of public interest is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief: “to declare the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in allowing the 5th respondent to establish petroleum retail outlet in an extent of Ac.0.20 cents in Survey No.560-3B2 of Kandukur Town and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, in the midst of government offices without changing the classification of the land in accordance with Revenue Board Standing Orders as illegal, irregular and offends Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 not give any permission to the 5th respondent for the construction and operation of 2 HCJ & CGR, J W.P.(PIL) No.113 of 2025 Petroleum Retail outlet in an extent of Ac.0.20 cents in Survey No.560-3B2 of Kandukur Town and Mandal of SPSR Nellore District in the midst of government offices without changing the classification of the land in accordance with Revenue Board Standing Orders and pass such other orders.” 2. Petitioner claims that land admeasuring Ac.4.13 cents in Survey No.560/3B of Kandukur Revenue Village, SPSR Revenue District, has been classified as Government land as per revenue records. The said land is surrounded by various other parcels of land in which about 19 Government offices are in existence. That being so, the 5th respondent has now proposed to set up petroleum retail outlet in part of the land and the 2nd respondent has already allotted portion of land for the said purpose, besides issuing NOC. 3. Petitioner has taken objection for setting up of said retail outlet as the same would not only cause inconvenience to the general public who visit the government offices, but also would jeopardize the safety of the employees working in various government offices. Petitioner also claimed that already there were about 9 petroleum retail outlets in Kandukur, therefore, there is no need or necessity for yet another outlet. Since petitioner's 3 HCJ & CGR, J W.P.(PIL) No.113 of 2025 representation dated 25.11.2024 was not attended to by the 2nd respondent, present writ petition came to be preferred. 4. Counters have been filed on behalf of 2nd respondent - District Collector as well as 5th respondent - Indian Oil Corporation. In both these counters, it has been pleaded that in pursuance to request from the 5th respondent seeking for allotment of government land for the purpose of establishment of new petroleum outlet, the 2nd respondent identified an extent of Ac.0.20 cents in Survey No.560/3B2 of Kandukur Village, which is at prime location within the compound of Taluk Office, where various government complexes were situated. Further, it has also been proposed that the outlet to be under the control and operation of Revenue Department, and accordingly necessary further approvals have also been granted, such as No Objection Certificate dated 07.08.2024, fire permissions etc. 5. The aforesaid land has been leased out in favour of 5th respondent for a period of 20 years under registered lease agreement dated 07.11.2024. The purpose and purport of setting up of establishment of retail outlet is to cater to the needs of not only the Government departments but also general public at large 4 HCJ & CGR, J W.P.(PIL) No.113 of 2025 and only after securing all necessary statutory permissions, the outlet is being established. Therefore, the respondents have sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Heard Sri Naga Praveen Vankayalapati, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government for Revenue, appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri D.Prudhvi Teja, learned counsel, representing Sri Sai Sanjay Suraneni, learned counsel for 5th respondent on record. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner, mainly contends that when there are already sufficient number of petroleum outlets in the town, no purpose would serve to have yet another outlet, that too in the midst of government complexes where there would be huge footfall. Further, it is also contended that the government land is sought to be utilized for commercial purpose without seeking change in the classification of the land, which is impermissible. 8. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for respondents reiterated the contentions raised in the respective counters. 5 HCJ & CGR, J W.P.(PIL) No.113 of 2025 9. It is not the case of petitioner that the retail outlet is being established in contravention to any of statutory rules or regulations governing setting up of retail petroleum outlets. There is no bar for establishing petroleum outlet in Government land. The 2nd respondent has specifically pleaded that an extent of Ac.0.20 cents has been allotted for establishing the retail outlet and the same has been given on lease in favour of 5th respondent for a period of 20 years. The title to the said property continues to vest with the Government. That apart, it is also stated that the petroleum outlet would be under the control of revenue department. It is stated that subject outlet would be established by 5th respondent, which is a commercial entity though being a Government of India undertaking. The need and necessity of having retail petroleum outlet in particular area or vicinity will be decided considering various aspects and the same would be purely a commercial decision, completely to be left to the wisdom of 5th respondent corporation. Therefore, in the absence of violation of any statutory rule or shortcomings in the process of establishing the subject petroleum retail outlet, we find that the relief claimed in the writ petition is completely misplaced 6 HCJ & CGR, J W.P.(PIL) No.113 of 2025 and unfounded and therefore the same stands dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this case, if any, shall stand closed. LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J ss