APHC010362492013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 31289/2013 Between: 1. T.RAGHU,, S/O SUNDHARAIAH, AGED 34 YRS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O YEKOLLU VILLAGE AND POST, DORAVARISATRAM MANDAL, SPS NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, REP.BY ITS TERRITORY MANAGER, CHENNAI LPG BOTTLING PLANT J146, SIPCOT INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, NEW GUMMIDIPOONDI, TAMIL NADU 601201. 2. VANKA SUDHAKAR, S/O SUBRAHMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 38 YRS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O H.NO.1-13, MINAMALAMUDI GRAM PANCHAYAT, DORAVARISATRAM MANDAL, SPS 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 toto issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the lst respondent in permitting the 2nd respondent to construct a gas go-down pursuant to grant of dealership under Rajiv Gandhi. Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) scheme at Kuppareddypalem village, Doravarisatram Mandal, SPS Nellore District as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and consequently direct the 1st respondent corporation to re-notify the dealership enabling the residents of all the four villages of Yekollu Gram Panchayat to make applications though the advertised location is. Yekollu Gram Panchayat which is one of the four villages of Yekollu Gram Panchayat and pass. Page 2 of 4 SRS,J W.P.No.31289 of 2013 IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 38871 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 direct the 1st respondent corporation to re-notify the dealership enabling the residents of all the four villages of Yekollu Gram Panchayat to make applications though the advertised location is Yekollu Grain Panchayat which is one of the four villages of Yekollu Gram Panchayat, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V SESHA KUMARI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V R AVULA 2. B MAYUR REDDY The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: The above writ petition has been filed to declare the action of respondent No.1 in permitting respondent No.2 to construct a gas godown at Kuppareddypalem village, Doravarisatram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, in pursuance of the grant of dealership under Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) Scheme, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct respondent No.1 Corporation to re-notify the dealership. 2. In the writ affidavit, it was contended, inter alia, that respondent No.1- Corporation issued an advertisement on 30.03.2010 for the allocation of a dealership in Nellore District. The petitioner applied to the combined category. The petitioner’s application was rejected on 17.07.2010 on two grounds i.e. 1) the petitioner is not a resident of the advertised location, and non-possession of land in the advertised location. Subsequently, respondent No.1 issued an advertisement on 19.12.2011 for allotment of dealership under RGGLV scheme under the general category. Respondent No.2 submitted an application claiming himself as the resident of Doravarisatram. The petitioner SRS,J W.P.No.31289 of 2013 could not submit any application since he was not a resident of Doravarisatram. The dealership has been granted to respondent No.2, though he is not a resident of Doravarisatram. Respondent No.1 permitted respondent No.2 to construct a godown at Kuppareddypalem village, and accordingly, respondent No.2 constructed a godown at Kuppareddypalem. Respondent No.1, without following the procedure, granted dealership to respondent No.2. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Notice was ordered on 01.11.2013. There is no interim order in favour of the petitioner. 4. Thereafter, the writ petition was listed on 02.07.2025. Since none appeared for the petitioner, the matter is listed under the caption for dismissal. 5. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, Sri V. Sai Sampath Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri C. Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that he has no instructions from the client. 6. As seen from the averments in the affidavit, respondent No.1, in pursuance of the advertisement dated 19.12.2011, allotted a dealership to respondent No.2. 7. The petitioner approached the Court without making an application and participating in the process. Hence, allotting dealership in favour of respondent No.2, in the considered opinion of this court, the petitioner cannot be termed as the aggrieved party. This Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. 8. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date : 04.07.2025 IKN SRS,J W.P.No.31289 of 2013 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 31289 of 2013 Date : 04.07.2025 IKN