Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Prop, Ratnam Petroleum Agency, ... vs Prl Secy., Mny Of Petroleum Natural Gas, ... on 23 November, 2024
APHC010214452012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3329]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
SATURDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 28394/2012
Between:
Prop, Ratnam Petroleum Agency, Chittoor Dist ...PETITIONER
AND
Prl Secy Mny Of Petroleum Natural Gas New Delhi 4 and ...RESPONDENT(S)
Others
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. A ANASUYA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
2. SAI SANJAY SURANENI
3. SRIKANTH KAVETI
4. PENUMAKA VENKATA RAO
5. B MAYUR REDDY
6. O MANOHER REDDY
The Court made the following:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 28394/2012
ORDER:
When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is observed from the
proceeding sheet that on 21.11.2024, there was no representation on behalf of
the petitioner and the matter was posted to today. But today also, there is no
representation on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Sri Penumaka Venkata Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the
respondents submits that the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted,
since the petitioner is seeking for exercise of power of the corporation for
framing guidelines to sue the cause raised herein.
3. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents further submits that
the Writ Petition is not maintainable in view of the judgment rendered by the
Supreme Court in Vivek Krishna Vs. Union of India and Others1, wherein it
is held as follows:
"9. Even otherwise, a writ of Mandamus cannot be
issued to direct the respondents to enact law and/or to
frame rules even under the wider powers conferred
under Article 226 of the Constitution. A Mandamus lies
for enforcement of a fundamental right or a statutory
right, or the enforcement of a fundamental duty related
to enforcement of a fundamental right or a statutory
right. In exceptional cases, a writ may even lie for
enforcement of an equitable right. The breach or threat
to breach a fundamental, statutory or may be
2022 SCC OnLine Sc 1040
enforceable equitable right, is the sine qua non for
issuance of a writ of Mandamus.
14. Whether under Article 32 or Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the Court can give directions in
order to prevent injustice. This Court and/or a High
Court cannot direct the Legislature to enact a particular
legislation or the Executive to frame rules. This Court,
and/or the High court, does not give any direction to the
State to enforce an Act passed by the Legislature. Nor
does the Court enforce instructions in a Departmental
Manual not having statutory force, any non-statutory
scheme or concession which does not give rise to any
legal right in favour of the petitioner, far less, any
recommendation made by an authority such as the
Election Commission. It is for the Union of India to take
a decision on the recommendation of the Election
Commission, in accordance with law. It is not for this
Court to decide what should be the policy of the
Government. Policy matters are never interfered with,
unless patently arbitrary, unreasonable or violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution."
4. In view of the judgment laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
Writ Petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
________________________________
VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J
23.11.2024
TPS
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 28394/2012
23.11.2024
TPS
