APHC010060572024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH m.:.m AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY.THE TWENTYFIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 3330 OF 2024 Between: M/S Prasad Trading Company, A Proprietary Concern Represented by its Proprietor Mr. K.Srinivasulu, HPC Dealer , Noonepalle Village, Nandyala District, A.P. -518501 ...Petitioner AND 1. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation LTD, A Govt, of India Enterprises Kadapa Retail Regional Office, 2nd Floor, Chengalva Towers, NGO Colony, Kadapa, A.P. - 516 002 Represented by its Authorised Officer. 2. Union of India, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi- 110001. ...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 to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the coercive action undertaken by Respondent No.1, which mandates the automation of the Petitioners retail out let /petrol pump located in Noonapally Village, Nandyal District A.P. bearing MS/HSD Dealership No. 12655520 without providing essential infrastructure, including but not limited to, the requisite technical know-how the and support and technical staff and spare parts necessary for such automation illegal, arbitrary, and capricious, violating the principles of justice, and consequently direct the Respondent No.1 to defer the natural automation of Petitioner out let till proving the essential infrastructure, including but not limited to, the requisite technical know-how and for such automation. support and staff necessary lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 Respondent No.1 to defer the automation of Petitioner’s retail out let /petrol pump located in Noonapally Village, Nandyal District A.P. bearing the MS/HSD Dealership No. 12655520 till proving the essential infrastructure, including but not limited to, the requisite technical know-how and support and staff necessary for such automation. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. V DYUMANI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI G RAMA GOPAL Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI PASALA PONNA RAO (DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA) The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010060572024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] ■JK WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 3330/2024 Between: M/s Prasad Trading Company ...PETITIONER AND Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.VDYUMANI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.G RAMA GOPAL The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.1 to automate the petitioner’s retail out let/petrol pump located in Noonapally Village. Nandyal District bearing MS/HSD Dealership No. 1265520, without providing the essential infrastructure, the requisite technical know-how and support and technical staff and spare parts necessary for such automation, as illegal and arbitrary. i 2. Heard Smt. V. Dyumani, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri G. Rama Gopal, learned counsel, appeared for respondent No.1. SRS.J W,P.No.3330 of 2024 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without the technical staff, the authorities automation of the retail outlet/petrol pump. providing are pressurising the petitioner for the 4. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No.1. In of the counter, it was specifically mentioned that the vendors hired respondent No.1 are addressing the grievance of the dealers. 5. An interim order was passed by this Court on 08.05.2025, directing the petitioner to establish automation within 15 days. Learned counsel para No.5 by the 6. appearing on either side would submit that in pursuance of the interim order dated 08.05.2025, the automated. machinery was 7. The main grievance of the petitioner regarding the non-availability of the para No.5 of the counter affidavit filed by technical staff has been answered in respondent No.1. 8. Since the petitioner’s outlet has already been automated in pursuance of the interim order dated 08.05.2025, this Court opines that no further adjudication is required in the writ petition. 9. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is closed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. I Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR " SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// ■ p- To, 1. One CC to Smt. V Dyumani Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri G Rama Gopal, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Pasala Ponna Rao, Deputy Solicitor General High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies of India, HIGH COURT DATED:25/06/2025 g 01 AUG 2025 ® ^ ^ Currenl Section . jS M"esPATC»«2^ '/S’ ORDER WP 3330/2024 c». CLOSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS