lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVA FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE, Two THOUSAND AND |TWENTY THREE :pRESENT|. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATl

lANo.1 OF2023 lN wp` NO: 1422O OF 2O23

Between:

Gandham Srin'lvasulu, S/o.Sanjeeva'lah, Aged about 40 years, Occ. Bus'lness, proprietor of M/s.Sri Venkateswara Filling Station, Survey No.242, padmavathipuram village, Tirupati Rural MandaI, Tirupati Distr'lct' ...PETITIONER

7^

AND

• 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District
• 2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirupati, T'lrupati District
• 3. The D'lstrict Revenue Officer and Addit'lonal District Magistrate, Tirupati, Chittoor District.
• 4. The D'lstrict Supply Officer, T'lrupati, Ch'lttoor District
• 5. The Joint Chief Controller of Explosives Explosives Department, Circle No.140, Shastri Bhavan, 26 Haddows Road, Nungampakam, Chennai.
• 6. The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Lim'lted (A Government Of lnd'la Enterprises), Having its Regional office at 16-15-986/2, Aarvy House, Near Krishna Mandiram, Children's Park Main Road, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. Rep. by its Regional Manager.
• 7. Smt.Maddepatla Padmavathamma, W/o. M.Reddappa Na'ldu, Aged about 58
• years, Residing at D.No.1/10, Srin'lvasapuram Tiruchanur Road, T'lrupat'l, Chittoor District
• 8. Maddepatla Reddappa Naidu, S/o.\ Late Venkata Subbaiah, Aged about 68 years, Res'lding at D .No.1 / 10, Sriniv9SaPuram Tiruchanur Road, Tirupat-I, Ch.lttoor District. ...RESPONDENTS

petition under section 151 CPC pray-lng that in the Circumstances Stated in the affidav'lt filed 'ln suppoh of the petit'lon,,t,he High Couh may be Pleased direct the respondent 3 to 6 to permit the PetitiOher t6 operate the reta" outlet at Sy.No.242, padmavathipuram, Tirupati Rural Manda', Chittoor District by Suspending the Order of the 2nd respondent issued 'ln ROC No.C6/5o96/2023 dated 31.05.2023, Pending d|lsposal ofwp No. 14220 of 2023, on the'`file Of the High Court.

The petition coming On for hearing, upon PeruS',ng the Petition and the affidavit filed 'ln support thereof arguments of sri o.Manohar Reddy, Senior Counsel for the petitioner, GP for Civil Supplies lfot 'the respondent Nos.1 & 4, GP for Revenue for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3, Sri Har'lnath, Advocate for the respondent No.5 and Sri VR Reddy Kowuri, Advocate .for the respondent No.6, made the following

I;t.

i.

ORDER:

"1. Heard.

2. Sri O. Manohar Reddy learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, 6^th respondent-HPCL Corporation has established a retail outlet (petrol-pump) in S.No.242, Srinivasapuram, Tiruchanur in an extent of Ac.0.21 cents, and the said land is taken on lease. He further submitted that, the 5^th respondent has entered into a lease agreement with the respondent nos.7 & 8 for a period of 15 years and the said lease is renewable for another 15 years as per terms of registered lease agreement which is placed on record and has drawn the attention of this Court to the same. He further submitted that, respondent nos.7 & 8 seems to have made a representation to the $2^nd$ respondent-District Collector, Tirupathi, through SPANDANA which has been taken on file and the 2^nd respondent issued notice to the petitioner, who is unconnected with the lease agreement and thereby entertained the same and got cancelled the NOC.

He further submitted that, in fact NOC was never issued in favour of the petitioner and it was issued in favour of the 6^th respondent and the 2^nd respondent, without proper application of mind, has entertained the petition filed by the respondent nos.7 & 8 and cancelled the NOC as if it has been issued in favour of the petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the impugned proceedings which is placed on record. The entire impugned proceedings does not show anything as to whether any notice has been served in this regard to the 6^th respondent. By virtue of this impugned proceedings the petitioner cannot run the petrol pump. He further contended that, the petitioner has employed his men in the said petrol pump by paying huge salaries to them. He submitted that, if the pump is closed abruptly, not only the petitioner but also the employees and their families would be affected. As such filed the present writ petition and prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard.

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for respondent no.2 submitted that, pursuant to the complaint given by the respondent nos.7 & 8, $2^nd$ respondent not only issued notice to the petitioner but also to the corporation and only after hearing, the said impugned proceedings has been

$\ell \cdot i^{-\log 2} \leq 1.1$

passed. She further submitted that, a detailed counter is required in the present case and opposed to grant any interim direction on the ground that there is no such lease agreement in existence as on today.

Perused the record.

The only dispute now is that, basing on the complaint given by the respondent nos.7&8 the $2^nd$ respondent issued notice to the petitioner and after hearing, has cancelled the NOC issued in favour of the 6^th respondent. In fact, as per the contentions of the counsel and as per the record, NOC has been issued in favour of 6^th respondent-(HPCL) permitting to open the retail outlet, and when NOC is issued in favour of HPCL, as to how the District Collector has cancelled the NOC stating that NOC is in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled. This itself shows that the District collector has passed impugned proceedings without proper application of the mind and without $\mathcal{L} \in \mathcal{L} \setminus {0,1}$ verifying the record properly.

There is some force in the contentions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that, if the petrol pump is closed abruptly, not only the petitioner but also the employees and their families would be affected. The petitioner has made out a point for consideration in this present writ petition. As such, this Court is inclined to pass the following interim order:

$\mathcal{L} = { \mathcal{L} \in \mathcal{L} \mid \mathcal{L} \in \mathcal{L} }$

The concerned respondent-authorities are directed to permit the petitioner to operate the retail outlet at Sy.No.242, Padmavathipuram, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chitoor District without adhering to the proceedings vide ROC.NO.C6/3096/2023 dated 31.05.2023 issued by the 2^nd respondent, pending further orders." Sd/-N.NAGAMMA

//TRUE COPY//

For

A State

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

SECTION OFFICER

To,

• 1. The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra, Pradesh Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District
• 2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirupati, Tirupati District
• 3. The District Revenue Officer and Additional District Magistrate, Tirupati, Chittoor District.
• 4. The District Supply Officer, Tirupati, Chittoor District
• 5. The Joint Chief Controller of Explosives Explosives Department, Circle No.140, Shastri Bhavan, 26 Haddows Road, Nungampakam, Chennai.

6. The Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (A Government of India Enterprises), Having its Regional office at 16-15- 986/2, Aarvy House, Near KrishJna Mandiram, Children's Park Main Road, NeIIore, SPSR Nellore District.

Jr

• 7. Smt.Maddepatla padmavathanima, w/o. M.Reddappa Naidu, Aged about p+ 58 years, Resl'ding at D.No.1/10,*, §rihivasapuram Tiruchanur Road, Tirupati, Chittoor Distrl'ct i,
• 8. Maddepatla Reddappa Nal'du, S/Q. Late Venkata Subbaiah, Aged about 68 years, Residing at D .No.1 / 10,`S,rinivasapuram Tiruchanur Road, Tirupati, Chittoor Dl'strl'ct.(Addressee nosll to 8 by RPAD-along with a copy of petition and affidavit)
• 9. One CC to Sri O.Manohar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]
• 10. One CC to SRl. SURESH KUMAB REDDY KALAVA Advocate [OPUC]
• ll.Two CCs to GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES ,High Court OfAndhra Pradesh. [OUT]
• 12.Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE,High Court OfAndhra Pradesh. [OUT]

.i :.:-;.i--.I

I .

• 13. One CC to SRl. Harinath, Advocate [OPUC]
• 14. One CC to SRI, VR Reddy Kowuri,I Advocate [OPUC]

` \

15.One spare copy I

i

CVSS

HIGH COURT

RCJ

$\frac{1}{2} = -1$

DATED:16/06/2023

$\overline{a}$

POST ON 30.06.2023.

$\frac{1}{f_i}$ ORDER IA No. 1 OF 2023 IN WP NO: 14220 OF 2023

DIRECTION

$\overline{I}$

$\frac{\pi}{\nu}$