HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NOs.1412, 1414 AND 1423 OF 2014 DATED:19.11.2014 W.A. No.1412 of 2014 Between:
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (Government of India Enterprises) Regd. Office 17, Jamshedji Tata Road Mumbai – 400 020, Rep. by its Managing Director and another … Appellants And Karimsetty Subba Rao … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NOs.1412, 1414 AND 1423 OF 2014 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) Learned counsel appearing for the respondents takes notice of these appeals.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. Having regard to the nature of the matter, we feel that the appeals can be disposed of finally today itself by a common judgment.
4. The writ petitioners – respondents filed the writ petitions for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside objection No.1 mentioned in proceeding No.HPCL/VJLRO/2013-14/Regular/185, dated 9.9.2014 issued by the second respondent therein and subsequently to accept the registered lease documents dt.23.1.2013 in the selection process of LPG distributorship in question.
5. The admitted fact in the writ petitions was that on 31.12.2012 a notification was issued by the appellant Corporation calling for applications for enlistment as LPG Distributors at various places in the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh. The notification requires to submit a document to the effect that the applicant must possess land for establishment of a godown as well as office. In case, if the applicant obtains lease of the property, the lease agreement has to be registered and the lease should be for a minimum period of 15 years. The writ petitioners - respondents obtained such lease agreements and the same were enclosed to the applications made pursuant to the above mentioned notification. However, the aforesaid notification dt.31.12.2012 was superseded and the appellant Corporation issued a fresh advertisement on 15.9.2013. The legality and validity of this advertisement was not challenged in the present writ petitions. Only it was asked for that the lease agreement document submitted in terms of the earlier notification, should be accepted to be the document in support of the application submitted in response to the subsequent notification.
6. It appears that the learned trial Judge by the impugned orders granted liberty to the petitioners to obtain supplementary lease covering the balance period for computing 15 years from the date of submission of application to the notification dt.15.9.2013. It was further directed that if the petitioners submit the supplementary lease agreements within a period of two weeks from the date of the order, the same should be considered treating the period of lease as 15 years and their applications may be processed if they are otherwise in order.
7. It is submitted that the learned trial Judge in substance allowed the writ petitioners to submit lease agreement in relation to the earlier notification which has been cancelled.
8. The point which has fallen for decision was whether the document submitted in terms of the earlier notification can be accepted by the appellant Corporation in response to the subsequent notification since the subsequent notification has been issued cancelling the earlier one. But, this issue has not been decided by His Lordship.
9. Whether the document supplied in response to the earlier notification since cancelled, can be accepted to be a valid one to submit the application in response to subsequent notification, should be decided first. Thereafter, relief can be granted.
10. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of the learned trial Judge and remand the matter to His Lordship with a request to decide the same afresh considering the aforesaid point.
11. The writ appeals are accordingly allowed.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There will be no order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ 19.11.2014 SANJAY KUMAR, J bnr