THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.30382 of 2014 Dated: 13.10.2014 Between:
M/s. Gayatri Costal Agency Rep. by its Proprietor P.Suryanarayana .. Petitioner and State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Ex-Officio Secretary-cum- Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and another .. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. N. Siva Reddy Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies (AP) The court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.2 in disposing of the petitioner’s application dated 04.08.2014 for grant of Form-B licence to the petitioner outlet, as illegal and arbitrary.
I have heard Mr. N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (A.P.).
Mr. K. Chidambaram, learned counsel, submitted that he is representing the owner of the property in respect of which Form-B licence is sought and that his client may be permitted to come on record as contesting respondent.
In the manner in which the writ petition is proposed to be disposed of, it is not necessary to implead the owner of the property as a party to this writ petition.
The petitioner was originally constituted as a partnership firm in the year 1975 and it was awarded retail outlet dealership by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (for short ‘HPCL’) in the year 1976. Since then the retail outlet started functioning. The petitioner pleaded that the firm was reconstituted after induction of a new partner and that the partnership continued till 2008 in which year the Managing Partner of the firm has died. That in the year 2012, Form-B licence has expired, due to which the petroleum outlet could not be run. That Mr.
P. Suryanarayana, who represents the petitioner as its proprietor, has approached the HPCL with a request to grant Form-B licence to appoint the petitioner as a proprietary concern to enable it to run the retail outlet. Accordingly, the HPCL has appointed the petitioner as retail outlet dealer and the Senior Manager of the HPCL has also addressed letter vide Ref.VRO/NBR/RET dated 21.07.2014 to respondent No.2, wherein while mentioning the fact of appointment of the petitioner as retail outlet dealer, he requested the said respondent to arrange for issuing Form-B licence to the newly appointed dealer Sri P. Suryanarayana. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner filed application dated 04.08.2014 in Form-A before respondent No.2 for grant of Form-B licence. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 has not been disposing of the said application evidently on the objections raised by a third party who secured a decree for eviction of the petitioner in a civil suit. The petitioner has pleaded that the decree granted by the civil court in favour of the person who claimed to be the owner of the land has been questioned by it and others in A.S.No.239 of 2014 and that this Court, by order dated 19.06.2014 in A.S.M.P.No.980 of 2014, has allowed them to remain in possession, subject to certain conditions and that the said conditions have been complied with.
Mr. N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the only ground on which respondent No.2 obviously is sitting over the application of the petitioner is that the person who claims to be the land owner has obtained the decree of the civil court. He has submitted that in view of interim order granted by this Court after hearing both sides, the said decree does not come in the way of respondent No.2 in considering the petitioner’s application and granting Form-B licence.
Mr. K. Chidambaram, learned counsel, who purports to represent the decree holder, submitted that since the retail outlet stopped functioning for more than two years, there is no justification in granting Form-B licence after the lower court has passed the decree. He has alternatively submitted that his client may be permitted to file objections before respondent No.2 to the petitioner’s application and that the said respondent may be directed to consider the objections before taking a final decision.
It is indisputable that the decree granted by the civil court for eviction of the petitioner is subject matter of A.S.No.239 of 2014 and this Court has passed an interim order on 19.06.2014 in A.S.M.P.No.980 of 2014, after hearing both sides, whereby the petitioner has been permitted to remain in possession of the property. However, this Court does not intend to render conclusive findings on the entitlement or otherwise of the petitioner for grant of Form-B licence, as the same needs to be considered by respondent No.2 in the light of the objections that may be put forth by the decree holder.
In this view of the matter, without delving on the objections raised by the decree holder, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner’s application in the light of the objections that may be filed by the decree holder, if such objections are filed within two weeks from today. Respondent No.2 shall dispose of the petitioner’s application within one month from the date of receipt of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner as well as the decree holder.
As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.37983 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 13th October, 2014 IBL