Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 735 (AP)

Gurram Praveen Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2022-08-05

R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

body2022
ORDER : As both these writ petitions relate to the same issue, and are being contested by the same parties, they are being disposed of, by way of this common order. 2. M/s.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL), had issued an advertisement dated 25.11.2018, calling for applications, for appointment of dealers for MS/HSD Retail Outlets. One of the sites mentioned in the said advertisement was Kothapalli Village, Kavali Mandal, Nellore District on the Kavali-Peddapavani Road. The petitioner in W.P.No.20277 of 2021 had applied for this location and was allotted the outlet, by way of Letter of Intent dated 27.07.2019. A No Objection Certificate was also granted on 29.07.2020. At that stage, the petitioner in W.P.No.15463 of 2020 had filed the said writ petition. The case of the petitioner, in W.P.No.15463 of 2020, is that he is operating a retail outlet of M/s. ESSAR Oil in Kothapalli Village and the allotment of the retail outlet, by M/s.HPCL, to the petitioner in W.P.No.20277 of 2021 is impermissible on two grounds. Firstly, the entire exercise was for establishment of a Rural Retail Outlet but the outlet is located on a State Highway and as such, cannot be treated as a Rural Outlet and the same is in violation of the guidelines of the M/s.HPCL itself. Secondly, permitting a second Retail Outlet in Kothapalli village would grievously injure the interests of the petitioner as the business of the petitioner in W.P.No.15463 of 2020 would get affected. 3. The petitioner in W.P.No.20277 of 2021 filed the said writ petition complaining that M/s.HPCL, on the ground of pendency of W.P.No.15463 of 2020, was not proceeding with the further opening of the Retail Outlet even though no orders have been passed by the Court in W.P.No.15463 of 2020. 4. The contention raised in W.P.No.15463 of 2020 is that M/s.HPCL having advertised the location of Kothapalli Village as a Rural Retail Outlet cannot convert the said outlet into a Regular Outlet, situated on State Highway as the same would be in violation of its own guidelines, titled “Selection of dealers, for Regular and Rural Retail Outlets” issued on 24.11.2018. 4. The contention raised in W.P.No.15463 of 2020 is that M/s.HPCL having advertised the location of Kothapalli Village as a Rural Retail Outlet cannot convert the said outlet into a Regular Outlet, situated on State Highway as the same would be in violation of its own guidelines, titled “Selection of dealers, for Regular and Rural Retail Outlets” issued on 24.11.2018. Sri K. Indraneel Babu, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.15463 of 2020 would draw the attention of this Court to guideline No.1 which states that Retail Outlets on Highways and Urban/Semi Urban areas are to be treated as Regular Retail Outlets and locations in rural areas, but not on Highways (NH/SH), and outside Municipal Limits of a Town would have to be treated as Rural Retail Outlets. He would submit that on account of this categorization, M/s.HPCL having advertised the location at Kothapalli Village as a Rural Retail Outlet in the advertisement dated 25.11.2018 cannot permit it to be converted into a Regular Retail Outlet. 5. The petitioner in W.P.No.20277 of 2021 would submit that the Retail Outlet abuts a rural road and the existence of a State Highway in the vicinity cannot convert the proposed retail outlet from a Rural Outlet to a Regular Retail Outlet. 6. Sri G.Jagadeeswar learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.20277 of 2021 would submit that the guidelines by M/s.HPCL are at best guidelines for the benefit of the persons participating in the tender or the Corporation itself and the said guidelines are not statutory in nature for the said guidelines to be binding on M/s.HPCL. Sri G. Jagadeeswar would also rely upon an order of this Court dated 07.01.2021 in W.P.No.23614 of 2020. 7. Both sides have gone to great lengths to demonstrate that the proposed Retail Outlet is on the State Highway or on a Rural Road. The photographs of the location produced by both sides would show that the retail outlet has two roads abutting the retail outlet. The first road is a Panchayat Raj road and the second is a State Highway. The petitioner in W.P.No.20277 of 2021 has also offered to reorient the retail outlet so that the access to the retail outlet will be from the Panchayat Raj Road. The first road is a Panchayat Raj road and the second is a State Highway. The petitioner in W.P.No.20277 of 2021 has also offered to reorient the retail outlet so that the access to the retail outlet will be from the Panchayat Raj Road. However, this proposal has not been accepted by M/s. HPCL as reorientation of the retail outlet would effectively require the entire equipment of the retail outlet to be removed and reinstalled and same is not commercially viable. 8. The entire issue arises on account of the guidelines of November, 2018 issued by HPCL itself. The stand of the petitioner in W.P.No.15463 of 2020 is that such guidelines are binding on M/s. HPCL and consequently, a location advertised as a Rural Retail Outlet cannot be converted into a Regular Retail Outlet. While contending that the said guidelines are binding on M/s. HPCL, the petitioner in W.P.No.15463 of 2020 was unable to bring to the notice of this Court any document or provision showing that these guidelines are statutory in nature and are binding on M/s. HPCL. 9. To the mind of this Court, the guidelines are not binding on M/s. HPCL., and are only instructions to conduct the selection of dealers for its retail outlets in a transparent manner. It has to be borne in mind that the Petitioner has commenced work on the site only after M/s HPCL had approved the site. The petitioner claims that he has already spent about Rupees forty five lakhs on the construction of the retail outlet and for installation of the machinery and tanks. Though the Petitioner has not demonstrated the amount of money spent by him, the photographs produced by him do show that a substantial amount of infrastructure has been developed in the site. In such circumstances, relocation of the retail outlet would only result in further losses to the Petitioner and M/s HPCL. In similar circumstances, this court, in it’s order dated 07.01.2021 in W.P.No.23614 of 2020, had taken the view that the petitioner should be permitted to start and operate the retail outlet at the same place. The same considerations would apply in the present case. 10. Permitting the petitioner in W.P.No. 20277 of 2021 to operate the retail outlet with access to the state highway will not in any manner be prejudicial to any person. The same considerations would apply in the present case. 10. Permitting the petitioner in W.P.No. 20277 of 2021 to operate the retail outlet with access to the state highway will not in any manner be prejudicial to any person. It is only the petitioner in W.P.No.15463 of 2020, who is objecting to the said location on the ground that his business would be affected. It is settled law that a rival trader cannot challenge the location of the rival business outlet on the ground that his existing business is going to get affected. 11. For all the aforesaid reasons, W.P.No.15463 of 2020 is dismissed and W.P.No.20277 of 2021 is allowed directing the respondents 2 to 7 therein to expedite the completion of the construction of the M/s.HPCL Retail Outlet, established at Kothapalli Village pursuant to the Letter of Intent dated 27.02.2019, at the earliest, and to permit the petitioner to operate the said Retail Outlet subject to his compliance with all the necessary requirements for operating a Retail Outlet. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.