Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
Sri. Vamshikrishna Indarapu – Appellant
Versus
The Govt. of India – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 4418 of 2024
Decided on : 19-02-2024
Mandamus - Retail Outlet Dealership - The court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders before the selection process for Retail Outlet Dealership is proceeded with.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for a Retail Outlet Dealership and got through the draw, but the application was rejected due to a mismatch of PAN Card details. The petitioner sought a direction to reconsider the application based on a server problem.
Finding of the Court:
The court disposed of the petition directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders before the selection process for Retail Outlet Dealership is proceeded with.
Issues: Petitioner's application rejection and request for reconsideration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found merit in the petitioner's request for reconsideration and directed the respondent to consider the representation before proceeding with the selection process.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders before the selection process for Retail Outlet Dealership is proceeded with.
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents.
2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:
PERUSED THE RECORD.
3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that in response to an advertisement pertaining to appointment of Retail outlet dealerships in the State of Telangana by BPCL published on 28.06.2023, petitioner applied and got through the draw which took place on 26.12.2023 and petitioner received an official mail on 27.12.2023. In response to a second mail calling upon the petitioner to pay initial security deposit of Rs.20,000/- the petitioner paid the said amount towards security deposit and uploaded the required necessary documents as well on 06.01.2024. It is further the case of the petitioner that petitioner also received a mail saying that field verification of credentials (FVC) was done properly on 25.01.2024, but however, on 27.01.2024 petitioner received a call informing the petitioner, that petitioner’s application got rejected due to mismatch of PAN Card details. It is specifically contended by the petitioner, that a human error occurred due to server problem and that petitioner should be provided with a chance and petitioner’s application should be accepted.
4. The specific relief as sought for by the petitioner in the present Writ petition is to direct the Respondent No.3 to consider petitioner’s representation dated 01.02.2024 addressed to the 3rd respondent i.e. The Territory Coordinator(Retail) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Arya Nagar, Hyderabad Road, Nizamabad wherein the petitioner requested the 3rd respondent to re-accept the petitioner’s application of BPCL Retail Outlet Dealership in the State of Telangana as on 28.06.2023 duly considering the fact that an error occurred due to server problem.
5. It is the further case of the petitioner that, though the 3rd respondent received petitioner’s representation dated 01.02.2024 to accept petitioner’s application of BPCL Retail Outlet Dealership in the State of Telangana as on 28.06.2023, the 3rd respondent has not considered the same till as on date.
6. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents represents that the Writ Petition could be disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation, dated 01.02.2024, in accordance to law, and pass appropriate orders, within a reasonable period.
7. Taking into consideration the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent, the Writ petition is disposed of directing Respondent No.3 to consider the petitioner’s Representation, dated 01.02.2024 addressed to the 3rd respondent before
AI
The principle of mandamus to compel the performance of a public duty was applied to direct the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation.
Arbitrariness, illegality, and irrationality in the decision-making process of a government entity, and the application of Article 15(3) of the Constitution for special provisions for women.
The court upheld the rejection of the representation based on the well-reasoned and speaking order provided by the respondents, considering various factors such as RBI Guidelines, Selection Guideline....
LPG distributorship - Declaration that the applicant had never been convicted for any charge; no charge had been framed by any Court of law for any criminal offences involving moral turpitude or an e....
Point of Law : Applications for selection of regular LPG distributorships were invited in April, 2011 by BPCL. One of the eligibility criteria was that the applicant should own a plot of land of adeq....
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....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
