APHC010076242011 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: 729/2011 Between: 1. CHINTALAPATI SATYANARAYANA RAJU, S/O. APPALA SUBBA RAJU BUSINESS R/O. MAIN ROAD, RAJA VEEDHI, POOSAPATIREGA, POOSAPATIREGA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 17, JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD, MUMBAI, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR 2. THE CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER, HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, VISAKHA LPG REGIONAL OFFICE, MALKAPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM ...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 of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 30.12.2010 in withdrawing the letter of intent issued in favour of the petitioner appointing him as LPG Distributor for the location at Poosapatirega Village, Poosapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram District as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as LPG Distributor for the location at Poosapatirega Village, Poosapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram District 2 JS,J W.P.No.729/2011 IA NO: 1 OF 2011(WPMP 890 OF 2011 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 stay all further proceedings including appointment of LPG distributor at Poosapatirega Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District in pursuance of the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 30.12.2010, pending disposal of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S V RAMANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V R REDDY KOVVURI The Court made the following 3 JS,J W.P.No.729/2011 ORDER: Though the matter was listed on 06.08.2025 and 13.08.2025, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner and on 13.08.2025, the matter was directed to be listed today under the caption “For Orders”. 2. Even today there is no representation for the petitioner. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents placed on record the instructions wherein it was mentioned that though alternative sites are shown by the petitioner for the showroom, they are not owned by him and the same was discussed with the Chief Manager – DM & CS Headquarters on 01.07.2010. Since the petitioner was not able to substantiate the land offered by him for the showroom is same as that has been mentioned in his application, the Letter of Intent was withdrawn and the empanelment of other candidates was also rejected. 5. In view of the above, no further orders are necessary and the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Dated: 20.08.2025 KAS