APHC010701402025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 36176/2025 Between: Simma Chandra Sekhar Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SATYAMNAIDU GOLIVI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. S.V.S.S.SIVA RAM 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 2 W.P.No.36176 of 2025 The Court made the following ORDER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the 2nd and 3rd respondents herein long pendency of issuing NOC to petroleum outlet of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited i.e.. Ref:VRO/ RET/LOI/206, dated 23.11.2023 and the 2nd respondent has not acted properly upon the remind letters from the 5th respondent VRO/PSK/RE-Regulapadu dated. 14.10.2025, the 2nd respondent has to complete the procedure within 90 days as per rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 but intentionally delayed for more than 2 years is illegal, improper, arbitrary, contrary to the rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 and violative of the Article 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to issue No Objection Certificate (NOC) for proposed outlet at Sy.No.135-1, 135-2, 135-3 and 135-4, Regulapadu Village, Kotabommali Mandal, Srikakulam District (Ref:VRO/RET/LOI/206, dated 23.11.2023) within a time bound period, as per proforma and satisfaction under the Rule 144 of petroleum rules 2002 and pass…” 2. The petitioner is a lessee of land to an extent of 900 sqare meters vide L.P.No.118 in Sy.No.135/1, 135/2, 135/3 and 135/4, Regulapadu Village, Kotabommali Mandal, Srikakulam District. The petitioner has taken lease of the land for 19 years and 11 months and agreed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to lessor every year and further increase of 5% lease to the base lease amount every year till end of lease agreement. 3 W.P.No.36176 of 2025 3. On 28.06.2023, the respondent No.4 had given advertisement for retail outlet dealership within one K.M. from Rengulapadu Village (Kotabommali Mandal). In pursuance of the same, the petitioner made an application. The respondent No.4 given letter of intent on 23.11.2023 to the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner applied for grant of no objection certificates from appropriate authorities. Accordingly, the petitioner availed NOCs from appropriate authorities as per norms. Pursuant thereto, the respondent No.5 applied for issuing NOC, to the respondent No.2 on 23.11.2023. As there is no response, the respondent No.5 sent reminder letters on 09.07.2024, 05.08.2024 and 14.10.2024. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents No.2 and 3, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies placed on record a copy of the written instructions of the respondent No.2, vide Rc.No.71/2023S1, dated 25.12.2025. The relevant part of the written instructions reads as follows: “…that, basing on complaints/grievances raised by Sri.Simma Chandra Sekhar, LOI Holder, the matter has been referred to the District Panchayat Officer, Srikakulam and the Project Officer, SUDA, Srikakulam with a request to conduct joint inspection at the proposed site situated at Sy.No.135-1, 135-2, 135-3 & 135-4 of Regulapadu Village of Kotabommali Mandal and to submit their reports with specific 4 W.P.No.36176 of 2025 recommendations, for issuance of NOC as per the rules in vogue. But the reports from the concerned authorities are still awaited. The copy of requisition letter is herewith enclosed for ready reference. In this connection, it is not out of the place to mention that, the petitioner herein has alleging that the remarks of the Panchayat Raj officials need not be considered for the layouts Las lies in Urban limits, but the petitioner has not submitted any Urban development approvals as did per the directions laid down in G.O.Ms.No.119 MA&UD Dt. 28.03.2024 and does not file any applications under the said G.O. and intentionally seeks the NOC without local authority remarks and approached the Hon'ble High Court duly knowing the above facts. It is also submitted that there is no intentional delay in processing the NOC, as the local body authorities such as Gram Panchayat have not approved the said retail outlet in their locality and thus the further enquiry is needed in this case. 6. In view of the said instructions, instead of going into merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents No.2 and 3 to complete the enquiry for issuance of NOC to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7. Accordingly, with the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dt.08.01.2026 NSM 5 W.P.No.36176 of 2025 139 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 36176/2025 Dt.08.01.2026 NSM