IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT APPEAL No.288 of 2021
(Taken up through video conferencing)
The Executive Director,
Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad,
TAPSO, Andhra Pradesh State Office,
No.3-6-436 to 438, II & III Floor,
Naspur House, Himayathnagar,
Hyderabad-500 029, and others.
.. Appellants
Versus
Harijana Hanumanthu, S/o Anjanaiah,
Aged about 40 years, Occ: Unemployee,
R/o 1-31, SC Colony, Pampanuru Village,
Atmakuru Mandal, Ananthapur District
and another.
.. Respondents
Counsel for the appellants : Mr. Dominic Fernandes & Ms. Pravalika Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. I. Koti Reddy Counsel for respondent No.2 : Mr. N. Harinath, ASG ORAL JUDGMENT Dt: 14.06.2021 (per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ) Heard Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned counsel assisted by Ms. Pravalika, learned counsel, for the appellants. Also heard Mr. I. Koti Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1-writ petitioner.
2. This writ appeal is directed against an order dated 05.03.2021 passed in W.P.No.2082 of 2021 by a learned single Judge.
HCJ&NJS,J 2 W.A.No.288 of 2021
3. Pursuant to the Notification dated 25.11.2018 issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, the writ petitioner had applied for grant of a retail outlet dealership for the location „Chamalur Panchayat Narpala to Tadipatri Road Left Hand Side, Tirupati Division, Anantapur District‟, which was mentioned at Sl.No.266 of the said Notification. The writ petitioner was selected for the dealership on 01.07.2019 on the basis of drawal of lots.
4. The case of the writ petitioner was that he had deposited the initial security deposit of Rs.30,000/- and had been paying rent for the land taken on lease. The writ petitioner had also spent a sum of Rs.42,000/- to the Electricity Department for removal of electric poles on the site. It was contended that field evaluation had been completed on 06.01.2020 but no further action was taken for issuance of Letter of Intent to the writ petitioner and in that circumstances, the writ petitioner had approached this Court seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the appellants to issue Letter of Intent.
5. The stand taken by the appellants was that the appellants were interested in setting up a retail outlet on the National Highway but, due to inadvertence, the requirement of location of land on the National Highway was not indicated in the Notification and though the writ petitioner was selected for the location notified in the Notification, the Corporation was in the process of cancelling the said location.
6. Considering the pleadings of the parties, the learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:
"In these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-corporation to pay the entire expenditure incurred by the petitioner on account of payment of rents under the registered deed of lease, and the payment of HCJ&NJS,J 3 W.A.No.288 of 2021 Rs.42,000/- for shifting the electric poles and such other expenses as the petitioner would have incurred for maintaining the site which was offered by the petitioner for the retail outlet. It would also to be held that the petitioner will be given priority for being considered as dealer for any retail outlet that may be set up in the area by the respondent-corporation on account of any notification being issued for establishment of a retail outlet. There shall be no order as to costs."
7. Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned counsel for the appellants, has submitted that the direction to pay the expenditure supposed to have been incurred by the writ petitioner is not sustainable in law as also the direction to the appellants that the writ petitioner should be given priority for being considered for grant of any retail outlet dealership in pursuance of any Notification that may be issued by the Corporation in future. It is submitted that the direction to give priority to the writ petitioner for grant of dealership for any retail outlet pursuant to any Notification being issued by the Corporation in future, would run contrary to the policy of granting retail outlets. It is submitted that the amount of expenditure incurred by the writ petitioner is not ascertained and, therefore, he should be relegated to alternative remedy. It is, broadly, on the aforesaid premises, learned counsel contended that the order of the learned single Judge is not sustainable in law.
8. Mr. I. Koti Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, submits that though not specifically stated in the writ petition, it is an admitted position that the lease deed was submitted along with the application submitted by the writ petitioner, wherein amount of rent for one month was duly reflected, which is to the tune of Rs.5,000/- per HCJ&NJS,J 4 W.A.No.288 of 2021 month, and therefore, it is not correct that the rent amount is not identifiable. It is further submitted that the writ petition having been disposed of on 05.03.2021, the writ petitioner would be entitled to the amount of rent paid by him till the month of February, 2021. Drawing the attention of the Court to the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition in respect of payment of Rs.42,000/- for shifting of electric poles, it is submitted by him that the statement made was not denied by the appellants. Accordingly, he submits that the writ petitioner would be entitled to rent paid by him for the period from the date of execution of the lease deed till February, 2021. That apart, the writ petitioner is also entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- deposited towards initial security deposit. Learned counsel has also submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned single Judge issued a direction to the appellants to give priority for selection of the writ petitioner in future as the writ petitioner was selected in the present exercise.
9. We are in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the direction to give priority to the writ petitioner while considering grant of retail outlet dealership in future cannot be sustained in law, as the selection for grant of retail outlet dealership, admittedly, is based on drawal of lots and in such event, any direction to consider giving priority to the writ petitioner would render the entire selection process redundant. Grant of retail outlet dealership is a matter of distribution of State largesse and for such grant, Notification is issued inviting applications from intending and prospective candidates.
10. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the direction to give priority for consideration of the case of the writ petitioner as a dealer for any retail outlet that may be set up in the area HCJ&NJS,J 5 W.A.No.288 of 2021 by the Corporation pursuant to any Notification being issued in future cannot be sustained and the aforesaid direction is set aside.
11. However, the direction issued by the learned single Judge for payment of expenditure incurred by the writ petitioner for setting up the retail outlet cannot be said to be unjustified or unwarranted. It is to be reiterated that the writ petitioner came out successful in drawal of lots and was, thus, selected for grant of retail outlet dealership for the location mentioned in the Notification. On account of the inaction of the respondents in proceeding further in taking the Notification to its logical conclusion, the writ petition came to be filed and it is during the course of such proceedings only that the appellants had disclosed that there was some inadvertent mistake in the Notification in not reflecting that the location has to be on the side of the National Highway. The writ petitioner continued to go on making payment of rent. We are of the opinion that if not from the date of entering into lease deed, at least, from the date of selection of the writ petitioner, he would be entitled to rent amount which was paid by him upto the month of February, 2021. Amount of rent, which is stated to be Rs.5,000/- per month, is not seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants. In any case, the same is ascertainable from the lease deed. There is also no dispute regarding the initial security deposit of Rs.30,000/-. Though some objection is taken as to the genuineness for the expenditure incurred to the tune of Rs.42,000/- towards shifting of electric poles, a perusal of the affidavit filed by the appellants would go to show that the averment that the writ petitioner had spent Rs.42,000/- on account of shifting of electric poles was not disputed.
HCJ&NJS,J 6 W.A.No.288 of 2021
12. In that view of the matter, we clarify that the writ petitioner would be entitled to only the aforesaid sums as indicated above in terms of the order of the learned single Judge.
13. The writ appeal is, accordingly, partly allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J
IBL
HCJ&NJS,J
7 W.A.No.288 of 2021
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT APPEAL No.288 of 2021 (per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ) Dt: 14.06.2021 IBL