Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1268 (AP)

Gullapalli Veeran Chakravarthy v. Rayapati Sujini

2024-09-06

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, NINALA JAYASURYA

body2024
JUDGMENT : Dhiraj Singh Thakur, C.J. 1. These two writ appeals have been preferred against a common judgment and order, dated 18.06.2024, passed in writ petitions bearing Nos.12071 and 17458 of 2023. Brief facts: With a view to understand the background in the light of which the present controversy has arisen, it is necessary to give a few material facts in brief: 2. An application came to be filed by one R. Veeraiah, which was addressed to the Hon'ble Minister for Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, wherein he sought LPG distributorship in his favour for Guntur town on compassionate grounds. It was stated in the application that he was sixty years old and that his dwelling unit had been washed away on account of unabated floods in Guntur District and that he had also two children, who are physically handicapped and were unable to do any work and that bringing up his children had become a problem especially after his wife's demise. The said application was directed to be considered favourably on compassionate grounds which finally fructified when a proceeding, dated 21.01.1992, was issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, communicating the decision to award LPG distributorship at Guntur District in favour of the said applicant. A memorandum of agreement was executed between R. Veeraiah and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as "BPCL") on 27.05.1992. Subsequently, it appears that R. Veeraiah sought for the permission of BPCL to incorporate his daughter Rajyalakshmi as a partner in the firm, which permission was granted on 15.04.1997. The license earlier issued by the BPCL was accordingly modified. 3. It is not out of place herein to mention that R. Veeraiah had two children, who suffered from physical disabilities, namely Rayapati Srinivasa Rao and Rayapati Prasad. It is stated that R. Veeraiah passed away on 06.02.2002, whereafter R. Srinivasa Rao, the husband of the petitioner - Rayapati Sujini, made a representation, dated 15.03.2002, to the BPCL to induct him and his brother namely Rayapati Prasad as partners in the distributorship. The BPCL is stated to have issued notices to both the sons of R. Veeraiah for subjecting them to examination by a Medical Board. The BPCL is stated to have issued notices to both the sons of R. Veeraiah for subjecting them to examination by a Medical Board. Only one of the sons, namely Rayapati Prasad appeared before the Medical Board but was found unfit, while the other son Rayapati Srinivasa Rao did not appear at all. 4. A writ petition bearing No.13918 of 2003 came to be filed by both the brothers i.e., Rayapati Srinivasa Rao and Rayapati Prasad as also R. Sujini, wife of Rayapati Srinivasa Rao, who is the petitioner in the two writ petitions bearing Nos. 12071 and 17458 of 2023. In Writ Petition No.13918 of 2003, the petitioners had sought for issuance of writ of mandamus with a direction to the respondents to reconstitute the distributorship with the petitioners. This petition, however, was withdrawn subsequently. The petition, which was dismissed as withdrawn, was not accompanied with any liberty to file a fresh petition. 5. It appears from the record that R. Sujini filed a representation, dated 12.03.2023, to the BPCL urging them to reconstitute the LPG distribution agency by adding her as the sole beneficiary and partner in the LPG distributorship inasmuch as according to her, the distributorship was allotted on compassionate ground for the livelihood of her husband namely R. Srinivasa Rao and also his brother Rayapati Prasad. This representation was answered by the BPCL vide their communication, dated 30.03.2023, when they informed the petitioner R. Sujini that her induction as a partner in the distributorship was possible, if a joint application was made along with the existing partners. It is in the aforementioned background, two writ petitions came to be preferred by the petitioner R. Sujini. 6. In W.P. No.12071 of 2023, the petitioner sought a mandamus for her incorporation as a sole owner of the LPG distributorship and also prayed for release of the amount deposited by Rajyalakshmi based upon her assurance made to the BPCL. It is not out of place to mention here that during the proceedings before the BPCL, Rajyalakshmi had assured the BPCL for depositing Rs. 7,500/- every month for the benefit of each of the brothers in an account maintained by her. It is in that backdrop that the petitioner R.Sujini claims that the entire amount, which was deposited, along with arrears be released in her favour. 7. 7,500/- every month for the benefit of each of the brothers in an account maintained by her. It is in that backdrop that the petitioner R.Sujini claims that the entire amount, which was deposited, along with arrears be released in her favour. 7. In W.P. No.17458 of 2023, the petitioner sought the issuance of writ of mandamus with a view to enable the petitioner to operate the two savings bank accounts in which the respondent - Rajyalakshmi had been depositing Rs. 7,500/- each pursuant to the arrangement made between her and the BPCL, on the ground that the petitioner was the sole legal heir entitled to withdraw the said amount. 8. Insofar as W.P.No.17458 of 2023 is concerned, based upon the statement made by Mr. O. Manoher Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, this Court directed the release of the amounts lying in the two savings bank accounts along with FDs in favour of the petitioner - R. Sujini and therefore, in Writ Appeal No.582 of 2024 arising out of W.P. No.17458 of 2023, no further orders need to be passed. The same shall stand disposed of accordingly. 9. Insofar as W.P. No.12071 of 2023 is concerned, the same was allowed by the learned single Judge with a direction to the BPCL to reconstitute the LPG distributorship by treating the petitioner as a partner of the firm M/s. Venkata Ramana Enterprises with a shareholding of 51%, in the capacity of legal representative of her deceased husband and the deceased father-in-law, while respondent Nos.5 and 6 namely G. Rajyalakshmi and her son G. Raghuram were together held entitled to 49% share in the said firm. The reconstitution of the distributorship was directed to remain subject to the outcome of the suit, which was pending before a civil Court. 10. The reason for ordering reconstitution of the firm as discussed hereinabove, according to the learned single Judge, was on account of the procedure as prescribed in the guidelines framed by the BPCL, had not been followed. 11. However, on a reading of para No.27 of the judgment impugned, it is not discernible as to which particular guideline had not been followed by the BPCL. 11. However, on a reading of para No.27 of the judgment impugned, it is not discernible as to which particular guideline had not been followed by the BPCL. On the other hand, the learned single Judge proceeds to hold the action of BPCL in demanding a joint application by the petitioner and the existing partners as "discriminatory and untenable" only on the ground that such an advice could not have been given at all on account of the pending civil suits between the parties. 12. The learned single Judge observed that in 2004, there was no insistence on the part of the BPCL that a joint application be made for reconstitution of the distributorship. However, it can be seen that reconstitution, which was effected in the year 2004, was at the instance of an existing partner namely Rajyalakshmi, who sought to incorporate her son as a partner after the death of her father R. Veeraiah. There was no history of litigation between the father and the daughter and the reconstitution was sought at the instance of the existing partner, which is not the case with the petitioner, who has a history of litigation with the existing partners and therefore, in our opinion, there was no similarity between the two cases. 13. Admittedly, there is a civil suit for declaration filed before a civil Court by R. Sujini, 1st respondent in the writ appeal, in which, according to the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, she claims certain shares in the partnership business on account of an unregistered will executed by her father-in-law R. Veeraiah. The reconstitution of the partnership firm M/s. Venkata Ramana Enterprises has been ordered by the learned single Judge only till such time as the civil suit is decided. We find that there is no legal basis for the learned single Judge to have issued such a direction especially when the matter was pending before a civil Court and evidence was required to be adduced. 14. In any case, having withdrawn W.P. No.13918 of 2003 filed by the petitioner R.Sujini along with her husband R. Srinivasa Rao and his brother R. Prasad, in which they had sought incorporation as partners in M/s. Venkata Ramana Enterprises, they are not entitled in law to seek their incorporation yet again in the said Enterprise to run the distributorship business. In any case, having withdrawn W.P. No.13918 of 2003 filed by the petitioner R.Sujini along with her husband R. Srinivasa Rao and his brother R. Prasad, in which they had sought incorporation as partners in M/s. Venkata Ramana Enterprises, they are not entitled in law to seek their incorporation yet again in the said Enterprise to run the distributorship business. While it may be true that a withdrawal of a writ petition filed in a High Court without permission to file a fresh writ petition may not amount to res judicata, yet as held by the Supreme Court in Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P., Gwalior & Others, (1987) 1 SCC 5 , "the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be deemed to have been abandoned by the petitioner in respect of the cause of action relied on in the writ petition when he withdraws without such permission". It was held that "the principle underlying Rule 1 Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure should be extended in the interests of administration of justice to cases of withdrawal of writ petitions also, not on the ground of res judicata but on the ground of public policy". 15. Be that as it may, we find that the petition bearing W.P.No. 12071 of 2023 filed by the petitioner, who is the 1st respondent herein, was not at all maintainable. We accordingly allow W.A. No.583 of 2024 and set aside the judgment and order, dated 18.06.2024, passed in W.P. Nos.12071 of 2023. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.