IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.33744 of 2014 Between:
Gudapati Praveen Kumar, S/o. Dr. Kutumba Rao, Aged about 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o. D.No.16-132, New Bank Colony, Kothepeta, East Godavari District.
.. Petitioner AND M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, Bharat Bhavan, 4 & 6, Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, P.B. No.688, Mumbai & 3 others .. Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.33744 of 2014 ORDER:
The respondent Corporation along with other two corporations issued notification, dated 15.09.2013, calling for applications for enlistment of LPG Distributorship at various places in the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh including Amalapuram in East Godavari District. The petitioner responded to the said notification and submitted his application for enlistment as a dealer at Amalapuram. After short listing the applicants, the selection was based on draw of lots and the draw of lots was conducted on 15.10.2014. In the draw of lots conducted on 15.10.2014, the 4th respondent was found to be selected. On the next day, the petitioner filed a complaint on the manner in which the draw of lots was conducted on 15.10.2014. The petitioner alleges that in spite of filing a complaint, no action was taken. The petitioner has also applied for information regarding the eligibility of the 4th respondent on various parameters. The petitioner apprehends that the 4th respondent’s location of godown is not within the specified limit from Amalapuram and, therefore, he is not qualified. However, the complaint submitted by the petitioner on 16.10.2014 does not contain this allegation.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is unable to make an application complaining about the eligibility of the 4th respondent since the relevant information is not furnished to him. However, nothing prevented the petitioner from filing the complaint raising those allegations. So far, the complaint that is pending with the respondent authorities is the method and manner of conducting of draw of lots on 15.10.2014 only and nothing else. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner can be given liberty to file a fresh complaint raising objections about the eligibility of the 4th respondent.
3. As per the brochure on selections for LPG Distributorship, whenever a complaint is filed, the said complaint would be looked into by the respondent Corporation. It is pre-mature for the Court to consider whether the complaint filed by the petitioner is already considered and it cannot be said that there is inordinate delay in deciding the complaint. As contended in the affidavit and during the course of hearing, the more serious grievance of the petitioner is the eligibility of the selected candidate, but so far no complaint is filed.
4. Leaving it open to the petitioner to submit a complaint against the eligibility of the 4th respondent and working out his remedies, the Writ Petition is disposed of. 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: 11th November, 2014 Note: Issue C.C. in three (3) days. (B/o.) KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.33744 of 2014 Date: 11th November, 2014 KL