IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.
K.N.V. Ratna Babu – Appellant
Versus
Union of India and others – Respondent
WP No.31158 of 2024
Decided on : 17-04-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. selection of dealer challenged as illegal. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. respondents justify selection of 7th respondent. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court analyzes locus standi of petitioner. (Para 6 , 9 , 12 , 18) |
| 4. clarification on the geographical legality of the selected site. (Para 10 , 21) |
| 5. definition and implications of locus standi. (Para 15 , 17) |
| 6. assertions about the violation of constitutional rights and locus standi. (Para 24) |
| 7. writ petition dismissed with costs. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
JUDGMENT :
1. The above writ petition is filed to declare the selection of 7th respondent as Petroleum Filling Station/Retail Outlet dealer for the Premises Bearing D.No.29/428 of Inagudurupeta, Chintaguntapalem, Machilipatnam, in pursuance of the notification dated 28.06.2023, and the No-Objection Certificate dated 29.11.2024 issued by the 5th respondent, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. (a) Averments, in the affidavit, in brief, are that the 2nd respondent issued notification dated 28.06.2023 (Ex.P1) calling applications from the eligible candidates, in the places notified by them for Petroleum Filling Station/Retail Outlets. In the said notification, S.No.303 is in Machilipatnam Municipal Limits, but not on State Highway and National Highway. The 7th respondent applied to the dealership at the land in D.No.29/428 located in NH-216. The petitioner made application to the 2nd respondent under Right to Information Act, however the office of 2nd respondent did not furnish a proper reply. The petitioner came to know that one P. Ruparani made an application to the Executive Engineer, R&B, Machilipatnam on 02.11.2023 requesting to furnish certain information regarding control over the road running from Harsha College to Kalekanpeta (via) Vallandapael, Zilla Parishad Centre, Chilakalpudi Centre etc. The Assistant Engineer, South Section, Machilipatnam-cum-Public Information Officer furnished information vide letter dated 15.11.2023 (Ex.P4), wherein it was mentioned that the said places come under the jurisdiction of National Highway Department.
(b) The respondents 2 and 3 selected the 7th respondent at D.No.29/428 for the land in prohibited areas and contrary to the notification dated 28.06.2023. The said P. Ruparani made another application under Right to Information Act to the Project Director, Implementation Unit, Machilipatnam, Ministry of Road, Transport and Highway, Machilipatnam to furnish certain information about notifying the road from Harsha College to Kalekhanpeta as National Highway. The Project Director vide a letter dated 27.05.2024 (Ex.P5) informed that the road leading to Challapalli from Harsha College is notified as National Highway. The 5th respondent also issued NOC to the 7th respondent dated 29.11.2024 (Ex.P6) for establishment of retail outlet. The other statutory authorities also issued respective NOCs. With these averments, the above writ petition is filed.
3. (a) Counter-affidavit and vacate stay petition was filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3. It was contended, inter alia, that the 2nd respondent issued notification dated 28.06.2023 for appointment of dealership for retail outlet in various locations in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Serial No.303 of the notification specifies that the location required for the retail outlet to be “Within Machilipatnam Municipal Limited not on SH/NH”. The 7th respondent made an application under Group-I. In the draw of the lots, the 7th respondent was selected on 05.12.2023 and thereafter, Letter of Intent was issued in favour of 7th respondent on 05.08.2024. The 7th respondent offered his land covered under D.No.29/428, Municipal Ward No.29, Inugudurupeta of Machilipatnam Municipality. The site offered by the 7th respondent falls within Machilipatnam Municipality and it is not adjacent to either to a National Highway of any State Highway.
(b) Earlier, another Writ Petition No.20919 of 2024 was filed, however no interim order was granted. The petitioners are Retail Outlet Dealers from othe
M.S. Jayaraj v. Commissioner of Excise, Kerala and others
Legal standing to file a writ petition is limited to individuals whose rights are directly infringed; mere competition does not provide the necessary locus standi.
The court established that IRC Guidelines are directory and do not confer a legal right to challenge the issuance of a Letter of Intent based on proximity.
Participant in retail outlet selection via draw of lots has locus to challenge rival's site NOCs for guideline non-conformity, unlike business rivals; IRC/MoRTH guidelines non-mandatory on major dist....
Administrative decisions must be made fairly and cannot be rejected on hyper-technical grounds if the applicant has complied with all requirements and invested in the project.
Competitive harm does not constitute legal injury under 'damnum sine injuria'; disputes involving pure questions of fact should not be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction.
Respondents cannot impose unadvertised conditions post-application, as the applicant's land met the described criteria, thereby affirming the legitimate expectation of the applicant.
The court confirmed that a specific location's advertisement does not necessitate the land being in a specified village, protecting the applicant's legitimate expectation for dealership consideration....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.