IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE " O o A'-S PRESENT V/V THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA^= WRIT PETITION NO: 2751 OF 2010 Between: M/s. Rohini Teja Indane Gas Distribution, represented by its Proprietor Smt. Mamidi Prashnthi, W/o.Seshu Kumar, aged about 39 years. Door No.76-3-11/14, Ghandi Puram II, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. Indian Oil Corporation Rep by its. Chief Law Manager, A.P. Sales Office, Narsapur House, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. 2. The Senior Area Manager, LPG Sales Indane Area Office, IOC Lted., Visakhapatnam-4. 3. The Executive Director, APSO (AP State Office), Indane Oil Corporation Ltd., Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. ...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 appropriate Writ or order or direction mostly one which is in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the proceeding respondent as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, ultravires, unconstitutional, unjustified, unsustainable, and set aside the same directing the respondents to continue the distributorship of the petitioner. rd Ref.APSO/L/S/2040-DSB dt.2.3.2010 of the 3 I.A. NO: 2 OF 2010fWPMP. NO: 3636 OF 2010^ 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 direct the respondents to continue the supply of LPG Cylinders regularly to the petitioners for carrying on the business by suspension of the operation of the proceedings Ref.APSO/L/S/2040-DSB, dated 3.2.2010 of the 3^^ respondent. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2010fWVMP. NO: 1020 OF 20101 Between: 1. Indian Oil Corporation Rep by its, Chief Law Manager, A.P. Sales Office, Narsapur House, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. 2. The Senior Area Manager, LPG Sales Indane Area Office, IOC Lted., Visakhapatnam-4. 3. The Executive Director, APSO (AP State Office), Indane Oil Corporation Ltd., Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS AND M/s. Rohini Teja Indane Gas Distribution, represented by its Proprietor Smt. Mamidi Prashnthi, W/o.Seshu Kumar, aged about 39 years. Door No.76-3-11/14, Ghandi Puram II, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 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 vacate the Interim order granted in WP No. 2751 of 2010 11-2-2010. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KARRI MURALI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI SAI SANJAY SURANENI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI DEEPAK BHATTACHARJEE The Court made the following: ORDER dt; APHC010495652010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 2751/2010 Between: ...PETITIONER M/s. Rohini Teja Indane Gas Distribution, AND Indian Oil Corporation Represented By Its and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: ...RESPONDENT(S) 1.KARRI MURALI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.SAI SANJAYSURANENI 2.DEEPAK BHATTACHARJEE The Court made the following: ORDER: ► This writ petition is filed to issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings Ref.APSO/LS/2040-DSB dated 03.2.2010 of the 3^^ respondent as illegal, arbitrary and consequently to set-aside the same directing the 1. respondents to continue the distributorship of the petitioner. The brief facts of the case are that, on 12.09.2007 the Grain Purchasing 2. Officer cum Deputy Tahsildar, Rajahmundry,inspected the petitioner’s godown and alleged that there is shortage of 18 domestic and 36 commercial full cylinders and 192 empty domestic cylinders and excess of 14 empty commercial cylinders. Basing on such proceedings, the District Collector suspended the petitioner’s Form-B license vide proceedings dated 19.09.2007. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner, the Commissioner of Civil Supplies had set-aside the suspension order vide order dated 01.07.2007 and directed the District Collector to dispose of the main case. Inspite of the directions given by the District Collector for continuation of business, the respondents have not commenced the supply of LPG cylinders to the petitioner. The petitioner filed W.P.No.759 of 2009 and this Court disposed of the writ petition granting liberty to the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the show cause notice dated 03.01.2008. The first respondent resumed supplies pending final decision. As no final decision is communicated for long time, the petitioner was under the bonafide impression that the proceedings were dropped. On 06.02.2010 the respondents issued termination proceedings dated 03.02.2010 and sealed the premises. Challenging the termination proceedings, the present writ petition is filed. Vacate and Counter affidavit has been filed by Respondent Nos.1 to 3 stating that there was clear violation of Clause Nos.9, 11, 22 and 27 of the Distributorship Agreement dated 19.06.2002 and hence the distributorship was terminated. Further, the petitioner has not exhausted the effective remedy of arbitration as provided in Clause No.37 (a) and (b) of the Distributorship Agreement. 3. Initially, interim order was granted by this Court on 11.02.2010 and thereafter, the same has been extending from time to time. By virtue of the interim order, the respondents are supplying the LPG cylinders. It is observed that the show cause notice was issued by Respondent No.1 on 03.01.2008, while the termination proceedings were issued by Respondent No.3 03.02.2010. The show cause notice was issued by the first respondent and surprisingly, the termination order is passed by the third respondent. The termination proceedings issued by the third respondent/Executive Authority is without any authority, competency and jurisdiction. As per the guidelines of Indian Oil Corporation, the termination letter should be signed only by the State head and the appointing authority is competent to pass the termination order, in the present case. Respondent No.3 is neither the appointing authority nor the State Head.Therefore, is necessary to examine the matter 4. on afresh by the competent authority. Hence, the termination order passed by Respondent No.3 is totally illegal and unsustainable In the result, the writ petition is disposed of, setting aside the proceedings in Ref.APSO/L/S/2010-DSB dated 03.02.2010 and the matter is remanded to the Respondent Corporation for passing order afresh, in accordance with law, after considering each and every objection raised by the 5. petitioner. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand 6. closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR /?■ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chief Law Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, A.P. Sales Office, Narsapur House, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. 2. The Senior Area Manager, LPG Sales Indane Area Office, IOC Lted., Visakhapatnam-4. 3. The Executive Director, APSO (AP State Office), Indane Oil Corporation Ltd., Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. 4. One CC to Sri Karri Murali Krishna, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri Sai Sanjay Suraneni, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Three CD Copies. gi a HIGH COURT DATED: 19/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.2751 of 2010 %o 0 5 MAR ?m rr* €n . Current aectwn ^★X DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS