Amara Avinash, vs The Union Of India,
2021 Latest Caselaw 3005 AP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 3005 AP
Judgement Date : 12 August, 2021

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Amara Avinash, vs The Union Of India, on 12 August, 2021

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

              WRIT PETITION No.8712 OF 2021

ORDER:

In the present Writ Petition, challenge is to the action of

the respondents 2 to 4 in not issuing the sales permission to

the petitioner to operate the Retail Outlet (Diesel and Petrol),

pursuant to the Letter of Intent (LOI) dated 06.12.2019.

2. The respondent-Corporation, vide notification

dated 25.11.2018, invited applications from the eligible

persons for appointment of Retail Outlet Dealers at various

places in the State of Andhra Pradesh and Yanam. In

response to the said notification, the petitioner herein applied

for the Retail Outlet at the place between Podalakuru and

Sangham (on MDR-3203), SPSR Nellore District. It is not in

controversy that in the process undertaken pursuant to the

said notification, the petitioner herein got selected as a dealer.

Vide proceedings Ref: M/2018/IN000797/AP./000097/4403/

00037 dated 21.02.2019, the respondent-Corporation issued

Letter of Intent in favour of the petitioner herein.

3. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the said

Letter of Intent, he established the infrastructure for the said

Retail Outlet and completed the entire work. It is not in

dispute that the petitioner herein paid an amount of

Rs.10,00,000/- for purchase of diesel, vide demand drafts

dated 28.09.2020 and 29.09.2020 for Rs.5,00,000/- each. It

is also not in controversy that the respondent-Corporation

also supplied diesel worth Rs.3,87,202/- for testing purpose.

While the things being so, the respondent-Corporation, on the

basis of a complaint said to have been received by them,

asked the petitioner herein to stop construction activities/

further works till they advise. According to the petitioner, he

completed the entire construction of the retail outlet. It is

further stated that the respondent-Corporation people orally

informed him that the place, where the retail outlet had been

established, is on the State highway and the same would run

counter to the guidelines of the Selection of Dealers for

Regular and Rural Retail Outlets. According to the

respondents, as averred in the counter affidavit, the

Corporation is not issuing the sales permission as the station

is at a prohibited place under the guidelines of the

Corporation.

4. It is significant to note in this context that in the

notification dated 25.11.2018, the respondent-Corporation

specifically indicated the place as the place in between

Podalkur and Sangam on Major District Road as 3203. The

respondents herein also seeks to justify their action on the

basis of Letter No.IOCL/TO/2020 dated 27.01.2021 of the

Executive Engineer (R & B) Division, Nellore. The said letter

came to be addressed to the respondent-Corporation in

response to the request letter dated 18.01.2021. The letter

dated 18.01.2021 reads as follows:

"As on 03.01.2020, Mile stone available on above road was shown as MDR 3203 but now same milestones are being painted as SH colour coding.

Kindly confirm whether Podalakur to Sangam road is state highway or MDR."

The response given by the Executive Engineer (R & B), Nellore

reads thus:

"Adverting to the reference cited above, it is informed that "the Mile Stone available on Podalakur to Viruvuru road is SH-436 which is a STATE HIGHWAY.

This is submitted for information."

5. It is also pertinent to note in this context that in

paragraph No.4 of the counter affidavit, it is clearly stated

that at the time of evaluation of the land, the Land Evaluation

Committee found no evidence, i.e., no marking stones/mile

stones of the said location being on a State Highway. Counter

affidavit further states that the milestone found at the site

was that of a Major District Road, i.e., MDR 3203 stones

during the Land Evaluation conducted on 29.08.2019. It is

also to be noted that even as per the letter of the Executive

Engineer dated 27.01.2021, it is not clear as to the date on

which the subject road came to be converted as a State

Highway.

6. In fact, when a similar situation cropped up in

respect of the retail outlet at Ollapalem-Vemulapadu Road,

the aggrieved applicant filed Writ Petition No.23614 of 2020

before this Court. This Court, vide order dated 07.01.2021,

at paragraph Nos.9 to 11 held as follows:

"9. The said stand may not be reasonable in view of the fact that the retail outlet was established on the basis of a certification given by the appropriate authority that is the R&B Department. Subsequent discovery of the fact that the said certificate has not set out the true facts cannot lead to injury to the petitioner. Further public money in the form of investments made by the 3rd respondent would also be lost on the ground that the location of the retail outlet is not in accordance with the policy of the respondent No.3.

10. It appears that the entire confusion has arisen on account of the fact that the status of the road was changed from MDR to State Highway in November, 2018, which is the time when the notification was issued.

11. In view of the peculiar facts of this case, it would be appropriate to allow the petitioner to continue the dealership at the present location inasmuch as closure of the said retail outlet would not only cause loss of capital for the petitioner but would also cause loss of capital and revenue to the 3rd respondent."