V- IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY I TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT APPEAL Nos. 980 AND 1010 OF 2015 WRIT APPEAL NO: 980 OF 2015 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 13.08.2015 in W.P.No.5838 of 2012 on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Rep by its Chairman Managing Director, Visakha LPG Regional Office, Malkapura, Visakhapatnam. 2. The Chief Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Visakha LPG Regional Office, Visakhapatnam - 530011. 3. The Deputy General Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Visakha LPG Regional Office, Visakhapatnam - 530011. ...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENT No.1 to 3 AND 1. Chodavarapu Rama Krushna Rao, S/o Sri Satyanarayana, aged 41 years, Occ; Graduate, R/o. H.No.3-12A, Makkuva Village, Makkuva Mandal, Vizianagaram District. and ...RESPONDENT N0.I/WRIT PETITIONER 2. Sri Mavudi Anil Kumar, S/o. Sri Raja Mohana Rao, aged 32 years, R/o Makkuva Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District. ...RESPONDENT N0.2/RESPONDENT No.4 *A. NO: 1 OF 2015(WAMP. NO: 2602 OF 2015) 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 suspend the operation of the order dated: 13.08.2015 passed in W.P.No.5838/2012, pending disposal of the above writ appeal. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI SREEKANTH REDDY AMBATI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI M. SATISH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: M/s. M. BHASKARA LAKSHMI WRIT APPEAL NO: 1010 OF 2015 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal against the Order dated 13.08.2015 in WP No. 5838 of 2012 on the file of the High Court. Between: Sri Mavudi Anil Kumar, S/o. Sri Raja Mohana Rao, aged about 35 years, R/o. Mukkauva Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District. ...RESPONDENT No.4/APPELLANT AND The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Vishaka L.P.G. Regional Office, Malkapuram, Visakhapatnam District. The Chief Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Vishaka L.P.G. Regional Office, Visakhapatnam District-530011 The Deputy General Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Vishaka L.P.G. Regional Office, Visakhapatnam District-530011. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Chodavarapu Rama Krishna Rao, S/o. Satyanarayana, Occ: Graduate, R/o. H. No. 3-12 A, Makkuva Village, Makkuva Mandal, Visakhapatnam District-530011. 1. 2. 3. 4. ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015(WAMP. NO: 2663 OF 2015) 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 suspend the operation of the order dated 13-08-2015 in W.P. 5838 of 2012, pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. BHASKARI Counsel for Respondent No.1 to 2: SRI T. SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI AMBATI SREEKANTH REDDY Counsel for Respondent No.4:SRI M. SATISH KUMAR The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT Bench Sr.Nos:- 28&29 [3483] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI APHC010423772015 WRIT APPEAL NO; 980 of 2015 along with W.A.No.lOIOof 2015 W.A.No.980 of 2015: Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and 2 others ...Appellants Vs. Chodavarapu Rama Krishna Rao and another ...Respondents Advocate for Appellants Mr. Sreekanth Reddy Ambati Advocates for Respondents None - R1 Mrs. M. Bhaskara Lakshmi - R2 CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE ; 25th February 2025 Per DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR. CJ: The present set of writ appeals, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, have been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 13.08.2015, passed in W.P.No.5838 of 2012. However, for purposes of convenience, facts mentioned in W.A.No.980 of 2015 are being referred to. \ 2 HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.980 of 2015 & another With a view to understand the background of the context of which the present controversy has arisen, it is necessary to state the material facts 2. in brief: Notification, dated 30.03.2010, was issued by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited inviting applications from eligible candidates including the candidates who fell within the physically handicapped category for allotment of LPG dealership. Chodavarapu Rama Krishna Rao/respondent No.1 herein. Mavudi Anil Kumar, respondent No.2 herein and one, A. Ravi Kumar, were shortlisted as they were found eligible for consideration. 3. The respondent No.1, C. Rama Krishna Rao, claimed that he suffered from 75% disability, whereas respondent No.2 claimed to be a visually handicapped person. The selection of candidates came to be made through draw of lots, wherein respondent No.2 came to be selected, however. subsequently, vide order, dated 20.12.2010, his selection was cancelled on two grounds, firstly that the godown offered by him for running the distributorship was not approachable in all weather conditions and, secondly the medical certificate produced by him had expired long back. i The rejection of respondent No.2 came to be challenged by him 4. in W.P.No.3683 of 2011, which was allowed on the ground that the same was in violation of principles of natural justice. It was ordered that the respondents therein would issue a notice to petitioner therein and appropriate orders would 3 HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.980 of 2015 & another be passed on consideration of the explanation that may be submitted by the said petitioner. ■r 5. A show cause notice then came to be issued by the appellant Corporation following the said judgment which was responded to by respondent No.2 herein. In response to the show cause notice, it was denied that the medical certificate reflecting his disability had since expired. In any case yet another certificate, dated 10.01.2011, was produced by respondent No.2 herein issued by the District Medical Board, Vizianagaram, reflecting that he suffered from 40% congenital blindness. Another certificate 05.04.2011, was also furnished by him to the appellant Corporation issued by the Assistant Engineer in regard to the accessibility of the site where godown was proposed to be located. dated the 6. On a consideration of the explanation rendered by the respondent No.2 herein, by virtue of communication, dated 06.08.2011 Corporation accepted the candidature of respondent No.2 herein. the appellant A perusal of the communication, dated 06.08.2011 would show that, on the issue of accessibility of the godown offered by M. Anil Kumar for storage of the stock, a team of two officers had visited the site on 21.07.2011 during rain and found that the godown site was approachable by all the types of vehicles. 4 HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.980 of 2015 & another With regard to the visual disability suffered by M. Anil Kumar, it held in the order of consideration that the appellant Corporation recorded the factum of issuance of certificate issued by the District Medical Board wherein it was reflected that M. Anil Kumar suffered from 40% congenital blindness and that he was partially blind. was In that backdrop, a writ petition came to be filed vide W.P.No.5838 of 2012 by C. Rama Krishna Rao/respondent No.1 herein, which was allowed by virtue of judgment and order impugned, dated 13.08.2015, in the present writ appeal. The said writ petition was allowed the premise that Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited had committed a patent illegality in allowing respondent No.2 to file fresh documents, which had come into existence much after the rejection of his application. 7. on Reference in this regard was made to Clause 14(g) of the tender document, which reads as follows: "The applicant shall furnish information in the application based on the documents which were available with them at the time of making the application. If the originals of such documents are not filed, or false documents are filed or Irrelevant information is furnished, selection of the candidate will be cancelled." It was held that once the application was made, the applicant was not entitled to file fresh documents and that he was entitled to furnish additional information in relation to the documents already filed by him. 5 HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.980 of 2015 & another Learned counsel for the appellant Corporation would submit that the learned single Judge committed an error in not appreciating that the documents which were filed by the respondent No.2 herein were not new documents but were only in support and elucidation of the documents which have already been filed earlier. It was also sought to be urged that respondent No.2 herein had already made huge investments and to declare him ineligible would cause serious financial prejudice to his interests. 8. It was urged that the earlier medical certificate which was produced by respondent No.2 herein showed that he suffered from visual disability to the extent of 70% and that the second certificate also proved that he continued to suffer the disability although to the extent of 40% and was 9. suffered congenital blindness up to 40%. Insofar as the site offered for the godown is concerned, it was stated that a team of officers had visited the site and found that the same was approachable by all kinds of vehicles and therefore, in that regard, it was urged that the explanation which had been tendered by respondent No.2 herein had been accepted and respondent No.2 herein was rightly held eligible for allotment of LPG distributorship. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and respondent No.2 10. and gone through the record. 6 HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.980 of 2015 & another The candidature of respondent No.2 was admittedly rejected two grounds, firstly on the issue of validity of the medical certificate and secondly on the inaccessibility of the godown. 11. on in this regard, it would be pertinent to make a reference of the medical certificate, which had been earlier submitted along with the application form. A perusal of the medical certificate earlier issued would show that respondent No.2 suffered 70% permanent visual impairment. The certificate so issued did not specify any period of validity at all. What perhaps is being considered the validity period of the said certificate is an endorsement under the head “note”, which reads as under: as 2. Reassessment is not recommended/is recommended after a period of three years.” The fact that the medical certificate recommends reassessment after three years, in our opinion, does not specify that the certificate of visual impairment had to remain valid only for a period of three years and not any longer, as the said certificate, a copy whereof is placed on record, does not reflect that the visual impairment suffered by respondent No.2 was likely to improve within the recommended reassessment period of three years. 12. In our opinion, therefore, even the initial rejection of the certificate the ground of validity was not legally justified. on 7 HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.980 of 2015 & another On the issue of inaccessibility of the godown, the appellant Corporation, having considered the explanation of respondent No.2 and having satisfied itself that the godown was accessible for all kinds of vehicles, decided to approve the candidature of respondent No.2. The fact that the said respondent No.2 had furnished a certificate obtained from the Assistant Engineer was only a supporting document and assuming that it was not there, yet the satisfaction of the team that had been deputed based upon the explanation tendered by respondent No.2 was itself sufficient for the appellant Corporation to reconsider its earlier view that the godown so offered was not accessible, which view was taken without in the least calling upon respondent No.2 for any further clarification on that ground. 13. 14. Having considered the entire matter, we are of the view that the decision of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited in approving the candidature of respondent No.2 is well reasoned and does not suffer from illegality, vice of arbitrariness or perversity. any 15. It is not out of place to mention that by virtue of interim order, dated 23.02.2016, passed in W.A.No.1010 of 2015, the operation of the judgment and order impugned was stayed and pursuant thereto, the respondent No.2 - M. Anil Kumar appears to have been continuing the business after making huge investments. 8 HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.980 of 2015 & another Be that as it may. we allow both the Writ Appeals and set aside judgment and order impugned, dated 13.08.2015, 2012. There shall be no order as to costs. 16. passed in W.P.No.5838 of Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGI^RAR SECn^ OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Chairman and Managing Director, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, Vishaka L.P.G. Regional Office, Malkapuram, Visakhapatnam District. 2. The Chief Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Vishaka L.P.G. Regional Office, Visakhapatnam District-530011 3. The Deputy General Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Vishaka L:P.Gi Regional Office, Visakhapatnam District-530011 4. One CC to Sri Sreekanth Reddy Ambati, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to M/s.M Bhaskara Lakshmi, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri M. Satish Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to Sri T. Srinivas, Advocate[OPUC] 8. One CC to M/s. Bhaskari, Advocate[OPUC] 9. Three CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:25/02/2025 COMMON JUDGMENT WA.Nos.980 and 1010 of 2015 5 13 MAR 2C25 . Current Section ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEALS WITHOUT COSTS