IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 3388 OF 2025 Between: M/s. Kasturi Petroleums,, Rep by its Proprietor. Panchumarthi Srinivas S/o. Hanumanth Rao, Aged about 55 years, 3rd Floor, G.K. Mansions, D.No. 14-9-385, Sita Mahalakshmi Street, 4th Line, Rajendra Nagar, Chowdary Peta Post, Guntur - 522006. ...PETITIONER AND The Union of India,, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gases, Sastri Bhavan, New Delhi. 1. 2. Indian Oil Corporation Limited,, Represented by Appellate Authority Executive Director (RS-S and W), Head office, Indian Oil Bhavan, Mumbai. 3. Indian Oil Corporation Limited,, Rep. by its Executive Director and the State Head, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh State Office, Moosapet, Hyderabad, Telangana State (TS). 4. The Divisional Retail Head,, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Bharathi Nagar, Vijayawada ...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 writ or order or direction more in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of Respondent No.2 in deciding appeal filed by the Petitioner on 09.10.2024 despite a lapse of 90 days arbitrary, illegal, violative of Clause 8.9 of Market Disciplinary Guidelines, 2012 and consequently, to direct Respondent No.2 to forthwith decide the appeal and pass orders by considering all the material facts and evidence along with Petitioners submissions. as lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 Respondents to resume sales of Petitioner retail outlet until disposal of the appeal. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI AVANIJA INUGANTI Counsel for the Respondents No.1 : SRI POSALA PONNA RAO (DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA HGH COURT OF AP) Counsel for the Respondents Nos 2 to 4 : SRI A VENKATA DURGA RAO (SC FOR INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED) The Court made the following ORDER : APHC010062092025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 3388/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER M/s. Kasturi Petroleums, AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The Union Of India and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.AVANIJAINUGANTI Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.S.V.S.S.SIVARAM 2. The Court made the following: W.P.No.3388 of 2025 Dt:12.02.2025 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 3388/2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief; “ pleased to issue writ or order or direction more in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of Respondent No.2 in deciding appeal filed by the Petitioner on 09.10.2024 despite a iapse of 90 days as arbitrary, illegal, violative of Clause 8.9 of Market Disciplinary Guidelines, 2012 and consequently, to direct Respondent No.2 to forthwith decide the appeal and pass orders by considering all the material facts and evidence aiong with Petitioner’s submissions and pass ” Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and leaned Standing Counsel for the respondent-corporation. 2. 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is running Indian Oil Corporation Limited retail outlet under the name and style of “Kasturi Petroleum” at Etkuru Road, Nallacheruvu, Guntur District. While being so, on 04.09.2020, officers from the respondent corporation, along with officials from the Legal Metrology Department, conducted an inspection at the petitioner’s outlet. During the inspection, certain discrepancies were noted in the E01 and E11 logs. Additionally, it was observed that the K factors corresponded with the calibration logs, and the dispensing unit deals appeared intact and further the W.P.No.3388 of 2025 Dt;12.02.2025 3 removed by the respondent corporation and sent for to the test report dated integrated cards were testing. It is further submitted that, in response 04.09.2020, the respondent corporation issued a notice suspending the sales outlet, for which, the petitioner submitted a operations at the petitioner’s detailed explanation on 02.11.2022. submitted that the petitioner herein filed W.P. No.19715 of 4. He further 2024, dated 03.09.2024, challenging the non-revocation of suspension order Meanwhile, the respondent corporation letter dated 06.09.2024 and the same was informed to this despite lapse of four (04) years, issued termination Hon’ble Court basing on which the writ petition was disposed of on dated the said termination order, the petitioner herein filed 10.09.2024. Challenging No.20171 of 2024, wherein this Court is pleased to pass dated 12.09.2024 by directing the petitioner to prefer an appeal as 8.9 of the Marketing Disciplinary Guidelines, 2012. Further, directed to allow the petitioner to continue the operations disposal of the appeal, to be filed before the appellate another writ petition an order. per the Clause the respondents are as usual till the authority and the appellate authority is directed to pass appropriate orders made in the present independently uninfluenced by the observation, if any writ petition Aggrieved by the same, the respondent corporation preferred W.A.No.781 of 2024. wherein, the Division Bench of this Court on 19.09.2024, aside the order of this Court to the extent of has allowed the same by setting permitting the respondent No.1 (petitioner herein) to continue operation as W.P.No.3388 of 2025 Dt:12.02.2025 4 usual till the disposal of the appeal before the appellate authority, dated 19.09.2024. In response to this decision, the petitioner preferred an appeal in accordance with Clause 8.9 of the Marketing Disciplinary Guidelines, 2012. For more understanding, the relevant portion is extracted hereunder: 8.9 Appellate proceedings: “1. In case of termination arising out of invocation of MDG, the dealer will have the right to appeal within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of order, before the Appellate Authority, through the concerned Divisional/Territory/Regional office of the Oil Marketing Company (OMC). The Appellate Authority is empowered to decide the matter and the appeal shall be disposed of preferably within 90 days from the date of filling the appeal in the Divisional/Territory/Regional office of the concerned OMC.” Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent No.2 in adjudicating the appeal filed by the petitioner within the prescribed time frame set forth in Clause 8.9 of the Marketing Disciplinary Guidelines, 2012, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 5. On the other hand, the leaned Standing Counsel for the respondent- corporation, submits that the respondents will follow the due process of law as prescribed under Clause 8.9 of the Marketing Disciplinary Guidelines, 2012. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned counsel, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition directing 7. W.P.No.3388 of 2025 Dt:12.02.2025 5 the 2'"'^ respondent to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- K SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// N OFFICER To, 1. The Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gases, Union of India, Sastri Bhavan, New Delhi. 2. The Appellate Authority, Executive Director (RS-S and W), Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Head office, Indian Oil Bhavan, Mumbai. 3. The Executive Director and the State Head, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh State Office, Moosapet, Hyderabad, Telangana State (TS). 4. The Divisional Retail Head, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Bharathi Nagar, Vijayawada 5. One CC to Sri Avanija Inuganti, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri Posala Ponna Rao , Deputy Solicitor General of India High Court of AP[OPUC] 7. One CC to Sri A. Venkata Durga Rao (SC for Indian Oil Corporation Limited) 8. THREE CD COPIES TAC ’d HIGH COURT ^DATED:12/02/2025 ■* f A' i. ORDER WP.No.3388 of 2025 « 5 2 0 FEB 2025 Currenl Section . ^ DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS