The Executive Director, vs Harijanahanumanthu,
2021 Latest Caselaw 1952 AP

     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

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

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

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

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

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

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