APHC010578372012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] TUESDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 37441/2012 Between: 1. MOGHAL MASTAN VALI,PRAKASAM DIST, S/O. CHINNA MASTAN, AGE : 60 YEARS, R/O. KURICHEDU VILLAGE & MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. M/S BPCL CHAIRMAN MUMBAI 3, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REP., BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, BHARAT BHAVAN, 4 AND 6, CURRIM BHAI ROAD, BALLARD ESTATE, PB NO. 688, MUMBAI. 2. THE TERRITORIAL MANAGER, M/S. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, 1ST FLOOR, S.M. TOWERS, DARGAMETTA, NELLORE. 3. AREA MARKETING MANAGER CUM INCHARGE OF DEALER, SELECTION OFFICE, BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, S.D ROAD, SECUNDERABAD. 4. KANAMARLAPUDI BHANU PRAKASH, S/O. SUBRAMANYAM, AGE : 42 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 5-23, DARSI ROAD, KURICHEDU, PRAKASAM 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1 to 3 respondents in selecting the 4th respondent as the dealer of the Retail outlet of the 1st respondent at Kurichedu, Prakasam District is illegal, arbitrary, malafide, unjust by consequently directing the 2 respondents 1 to 3 to appoint the petitioner as the Retail outlet dealer of the 1st respondent at Kurichedu IA NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP 47520 OF 2012 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 issue an interim order stay all the further proceedings pursuant to the Selection of the 4th respondent for the Retail out let dealership at Kurichedu, Prakasam District during the pendency of this Writ Petition. IA NO: 4 OF 2012(WPMP 202465 OF 2012 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 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SARVA BHOUMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. O MANOHER REDDY 2. CHETLURU SREENIVAS The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: Sri T. Ramji Varma, learned counsel representing Sri K. Sarva Bhouma Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication and the writ petition has become infructuous. Recording the said submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM 19th August, 2025. cbn 4 171 THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WP No.37441 of 2012 19th August, 2025 cbn