Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 405 (AP)

A. Goluguri Abbu Reddy v. Union Of India

2020-05-29

A.V.SESHA SAI, B.KRISHNA MOHAN

body2020
JUDGMENT A.V.Sesha Sai, J. - Since these two matters are inter-related, they are being disposed of by way of this common order. 2. Heard Sri S.Dilip Jayaram, learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.15314 of 2019; learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies; Sri B.Mayur Reddy; Sri Suresh Kumar Routhu, learned Standing Counsel for Union of India; and Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel, apart from perusing the material available on record. 3. In W.P.No.15314 of 2019 petitioner is questioning the action of the respondents in not disposing of his representation, dated 09.09.2019, and allowing the establishment of the proposed Retail Outlet at Alamuru Village, East Godavari District, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. 4. In W.P.No.8804 of 2020, petitioner is questioning the endorsement of the Collector (Civil Supplies), Kakinada, dated 06.01.2020, as illegal, arbitrary unjust and also seeking a consequential direction to the respondents to consider his application, dated 07.10.2019, for grant of Form-B licence to run HPC Retail Outlet at Alamuru Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. 5. Petitioner in W.P.No.15314 of 2019 claims to be a resident of Ravulapalem Village and Mandal. According to him, the establishment of Petroleum Outlet in the subject premises cannot be permitted. 6. On the other hand, it is the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.8804 of 2020 that, despite compliance of all the mandatory requirements of law, the District Collector is not issuing Form-B licence to conduct HPC Retail Outlet as a dealer of HPCL under the A.P. Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980. 7. By way of the impugned endorsement, dated 06.01.2020, the office of the District Collector informed the petitioner in W.P.No.8804 of 2020 that, after the disposal of W.P.No.15314 of 2019, further action would be taken. It is required to be noted that, in W.P.No.15314 of 2019, which came to be filed on 20.09.2019, this Court passed the following order on 30.09.2019: "Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is essentially exploiting the cause of public. It is the contention that the establishment of Retail Outlet in Alamuru village is not correct as the said outlet is surrounded by brick industries and that their likelihood of danger. This Court is of the opinion that in this matter, only P.I.L. lies. The petitioner is espousing the cause of the public. It is the contention that the establishment of Retail Outlet in Alamuru village is not correct as the said outlet is surrounded by brick industries and that their likelihood of danger. This Court is of the opinion that in this matter, only P.I.L. lies. The petitioner is espousing the cause of the public. At request of the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Union of India as well as the contesting respondents, as this is a Public Interest Litigation Case, post this matter before the appropriate matter". 8. Obviously, after the said order, petitioner in W.P.No.15314 of 2019 filed another Writ Petition bearing No.18002 of 2019. 9. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.8804 of 2020, without mentioning anything with regard to the filing of W.P.No.15314 of 2019, the said W.P.No.18002 of 2019 came to be filed by the petitioner herein for the self-same relief. It is further stated by the learned counsel that, when the pendency of the same Writ Petition was brought to the notice of this Court, the learned single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition as withdrawn, on the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, granting liberty to the petitioner to take out remedies as per the requirement. 10. During the course of hearing, Sri S.Dilip Jayaram, who was the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.18002 of 2019 and who is representing Sri K.Munireddy Bala Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.15314 of 2019, has made a request to permit the petitioner in W.P.No.15314 of 2019 to withdraw the Writ Petition. 11. Considering the request made by the learned counsel, Sri S.Dilip Jayaram, this Court permits the petitioner to withdraw W.P.No.15314 of 2019 and, accordingly, W.P.No.15314 of 2019 is dismissed as withdrawn. 12. Coming to W.P.No.8804 of 2020, the District Collector (CS), East Godavari District, Kakinada, vide endorsement, dated 06.01.2020, informed the petitioner in W.P.No.8804 of 2020 that, after disposal of W.P.No.15314 of 2019, action will be taken. 13. In view of the above, as W.P.No.15314 of 2019 has since been dismissed as withdrawn, respondents are directed to process the application, dated 07.10.2019, submitted by the petitioner in W.P.No.8804 of 2020 and pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. 14. Accordingly, W.P.No.8804 of 2020 is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs in both the Writ Petitions. 15. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in these Writ Petitions shall stand closed.