IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.40660 of 2014 Between:
Alladi Srinivasulu, S/o. Bala Veerayya, Aged about 65 years, M&H Contractor (Maintenance & Handling), IBP Auto Services, Kapra, Hyderabad – 500 062.
.. Petitioner AND The Union of India, Ministry of Petroleum, Oil & Natural Gas, Sastri Bhavan, New Delhi, Rep. by its Secretary & 2 others ..
Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.40660 of 2014 ORDER:
Earlier the policy of the respondent Corporation was to establish company owned company operated retail outlet by taking the land on lease. When the land is taken on lease as per the earlier policy, the dealership was given to the owner of the land in the year 2006. This policy was subsequently changed and the system of alienating the dealership to the owner of the land is dispensed with. As per the earlier policy, the dealership was given to the owner of the land or his nominee. Initially, the Maintenance and Handling Contract (M&H Contract) was granted for a period of one year. Challenging the change in the policy, batch of writ petitions are instituted. Those writ petitions were dismissed. Thereafter, writ appeals are filed. Interregnum, following the earlier interim order of the Supreme Court, a Division Bench of this Court directed the M&H Contractor to continue its dealership. Accordingly, the M&H Contractor continued to operate the dealership beyond one year till the disposal of the writ appeals. The batch of writ appeals were disposed of vide judgment, dated 09.07.2014, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Jamal Vs. Union of India and
[1]
another . Following the judgment of the Supreme Court and consequent to the dismissal of the writ appeals, a notice is issued on 23.12.2014 terminating the M&H Contract awarded to the petitioner. The petitioner challenges the same.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this writ petitioner is bound by the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.127 of 2008 and batch and the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Jamal’s Case (1 Supra). The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since no new dealer is identified, till a new dealer is identified the petitioner may be continued.
3. Learned Standing Counsel submits that initially, the contract was only for a period of one year. Though contract was not renewed to persons like petitioner, but they continued on account of the interim orders. The judgment of the Supreme Court clearly bars such a claim. No right is vested in the petitioner to continue as M&H contractor beyond a period of contract and even after the policy is changed. The respondent Corporation is not in favour of continuing the company owned company operated dealership system.
4. Having regard to the same and since the issue is concluded by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Jamal’s Case (1 Supra) and the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.127 of 2008 and batch, the claim of the petitioner for further continuation is not valid and the Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 30th December, 2014 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.40660 of 2014 Date: 30th December, 2014 KL
[1] (2014) 1 Supreme Court Cases 201