Siga Gangadhar vs Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 3835 AP

      HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

           MAIN CASE No:W.P.No.18451 of 2022

                   PROCEEDING SHEET

SL.     DATE                       ORDER                           OFFICE
NO.                                                                 NOTE
3     08.07.2022 RRR, J

                    The complaint of the petitioner is that the
                respondent No.13 is undertaking construction

of a retail outlet, to dispense petroleum products, and the same is not permissible as the said retail outlet is being constructed within 50 mts to the residence of the petitioner and the same is prohibited by virtue of Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules. It is the further complaint of the petitioner that the official respondents have given all permissions for such construction, contrary to Rule 144 and in violation of the Judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in M.Himachalam Babu and Ors. Vs Union of India and Others reported in MANU/AP/0885/2021.

The interim relief sought in this writ petition is for a direction to the respondents not to permit any further construction by the respondents 13.

Sri P.Veera Reddy learned senior counsel, appearing for Sri Asif Pasha learned counsel for respondent No.13 and Sri S.V.S.S.Siva Ram learned counsel, appearing for the 2nd respondent submit that the construction of the retail outlet has been completed and the said retail outlet had commenced operations about 10 days back.

Sri Venkatesh learned counsel, appearing for J.Sravan Kumar learned counsel for the SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE petitioner denies these contentions and submits that the construction of the retail outlet is still going on.

In the circumstances, the respondent No.13 shall not undertake any further construction. However, this will not affect the operation of the retail outlet, if it has commenced operations.

________ RRR, J RJS