Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Gullapalli Veeran Chakravarthy vs Rayapati Sujini on 6 September, 2024
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Bench
APHC010279812024
Sr.No:-3
AT AMARAVATI [3443]
Writ Appeal No: 582 of 2024 along with Writ
Appeal No.583 of 2024
Gullapalli Veeran Chakravarthy and others ...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Rayapati Sujini and Others ...Respondent(s)
**********
Mr. O. Manoher Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. Kanakala
Devi Prasannakumar, Advocate for appellants.
Mr. P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, Ms. Jyothi Ratna Anumolu, Mr.
Sricharan Telaprolu, Mr. V. V. Satish, Advocates for respondents.
CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR
SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
DATE : 06-09-2024
PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ:
These two writ appeals have been preferred against a common
judgment and order, dated 18.06.2024, passed in writ petitions bearing
Nos.12071 and 17458 of 2023.
Brief facts:
With a view to understand the background in the light of which the
present controversy has arisen, it is necessary to give a few material facts in
brief:
HCJ & NJS, J
W.A. Nos: 582 & 583 of 2024
2. An application came to be filed by one R. Veeraiah, which was
addressed to the Hon'ble Minister for Petroleum and Natural Gas,
Government of India, wherein he sought LPG distributorship in his favour for
Guntur town on compassionate grounds. It was stated in the application that
he was sixty years old and that his dwelling unit had been washed away on
account of unabated floods in Guntur District and that he had also two
children, who are physically handicapped and were unable to do any work and
that bringing up his children had become a problem especially after his wife's
demise.
The said application was directed to be considered favourably on
compassionate grounds which finally fructified when a proceeding, dated
21.01.1992, was issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, communicating the decision to award
LPG distributorship at Guntur District in favour of the said applicant. A
memorandum of agreement was executed between R. Veeraiah and Bharat
Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as "BPCL") on
27.05.1992. Subsequently, it appears that R. Veeraiah sought for the
permission of BPCL to incorporate his daughter Rajyalakshmi as a partner in
the firm, which permission was granted on 15.04.1997. The license earlier
issued by the BPCL was accordingly modified.
HCJ & NJS, J
W.A. Nos: 582 & 583 of 2024
3. It is not out of place herein to mention that R. Veeraiah had two
children, who suffered from physical disabilities, namely Rayapati Srinivasa
Rao and Rayapati Prasad. It is stated that R. Veeraiah passed away on
06.02.2002, whereafter R. Srinivasa Rao, the husband of the petitioner -
Rayapati Sujini, made a representation, dated 15.03.2002, to the BPCL to
induct him and his brother namely Rayapati Prasad as partners in the
distributorship. The BPCL is stated to have issued notices to both the sons of
R. Veeraiah for subjecting them to examination by a Medical Board. Only one
of the sons, namely Rayapati Prasad appeared before the Medical Board but
was found unfit, while the other son Rayapati Srinivasa Rao did not appear at
all.
4. A writ petition bearing No.13918 of 2003 came to be filed by both the
brothers i.e., Rayapati Srinivasa Rao and Rayapati Prasad as also R. Sujini,
wife of Rayapati Srinivasa Rao, who is the petitioner in the two writ petitions
bearing Nos. 12071 and 17458 of 2023. In Writ Petition No.13918 of 2003, the
petitioners had sought for issuance of writ of mandamus with a direction to the
respondents to reconstitute the distributorship with the petitioners. This
petition, however, was withdrawn subsequently. The petition, which was
dismissed as withdrawn, was not accompanied with any liberty to file a fresh
petition.
HCJ & NJS, J
W.A. Nos: 582 & 583 of 2024
5. It appears from the record that R. Sujini filed a representation, dated
12.03.2023, to the BPCL urging them to reconstitute the LPG distribution
agency by adding her as the sole beneficiary and partner in the LPG
distributorship inasmuch as according to her, the distributorship was allotted
on compassionate ground for the livelihood of her husband namely R.
Srinivasa Rao and also his brother Rayapati Prasad. This representation was
answered by the BPCL vide their communication, dated 30.03.2023, when
they informed the petitioner R. Sujini that her induction as a partner in the
distributorship was possible, if a joint application was made along with the
existing partners. It is in the aforementioned background, two writ petitions
came to be preferred by the petitioner R. Sujini.
6. In W.P. No.12071 of 2023, the petitioner sought a mandamus for her
incorporation as a sole owner of the LPG distributorship and also prayed for
release of the amount deposited by Rajyalakshmi based upon her assurance
made to the BPCL.
It is not out of place to mention here that during the proceedings before
the BPCL, Rajyalakshmi had assured the BPCL for depositing Rs.7,500/-
every month for the benefit of each of the brothers in an account maintained
by her. It is in that backdrop that the petitioner R.Sujini claims that the entire
amount, which was deposited, along with arrears be released in her favour.
HCJ & NJS, J
W.A. Nos: 582 & 583 of 2024
7. In W.P. No.17458 of 2023, the petitioner sought the issuance of writ of
mandamus with a view to enable the petitioner to operate the two savings
bank accounts in which the respondent - Rajyalakshmi had been depositing
Rs.7,500/- each pursuant to the arrangement made between her and the
BPCL, on the ground that the petitioner was the sole legal heir entitled to
withdraw the said amount.
8. Insofar as W.P.No.17458 of 2023 is concerned, based upon the
statement made by Mr. O. Manoher Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the appellants, this Court directed the release of the amounts lying in the
two savings bank accounts along with FDs in favour of the petitioner - R.
Sujini and therefore, in Writ Appeal No.582 of 2024 arising out of W.P.
No.17458 of 2023, no further orders need to be passed. The same shall stand
disposed of accordingly.
9. Insofar as W.P. No.12071 of 2023 is concerned, the same was allowed
by the learned single Judge with a direction to the BPCL to reconstitute the
LPG distributorship by treating the petitioner as a partner of the firm M/s
Venkata Ramana Enterprises with a shareholding of 51%, in the capacity of
legal representative of her deceased husband and the deceased father-in-law,
while respondent Nos.5 and 6 namely G. Rajyalakshmi and her son G.
Raghuram were together held entitled to 49% share in the said firm. The
HCJ & NJS, J
W.A. Nos: 582 & 583 of 2024
reconstitution of the distributorship was directed to remain subject to the
outcome of the suit, which was pending before a civil Court.
10. The reason for ordering reconstitution of the firm as discussed
hereinabove, according to the learned single Judge, was on account of the
procedure as prescribed in the guidelines framed by the BPCL, had not been
followed.
11. However, on a reading of para No.27 of the judgment impugned, it is
not discernible as to which particular guideline had not been followed by the
BPCL. On the other hand, the learned single Judge proceeds to hold the
action of BPCL in demanding a joint application by the petitioner and the
existing partners as "discriminatory and untenable" only on the ground that
such an advice could not have been given at all on account of the pending
civil suits between the parties.
12. The learned single Judge observed that in 2004, there was no
insistence on the part of the BPCL that a joint application be made for
reconstitution of the distributorship. However, it can be seen that
reconstitution, which was effected in the year 2004, was at the instance of an
existing partner namely Rajyalakshmi, who sought to incorporate her son as a
partner after the death of her father R. Veeraiah. There was no history of
litigation between the father and the daughter and the reconstitution was
sought at the instance of the existing partner, which is not the case with the
HCJ & NJS, J
W.A. Nos: 582 & 583 of 2024
petitioner, who has a history of litigation with the existing partners and
therefore, in our opinion, there was no similarity between the two cases.
13. Admittedly, there is a civil suit for declaration filed before a civil Court by
R. Sujini, 1st respondent in the writ appeal, in which, according to the learned
counsel for the 1st respondent, she claims certain shares in the partnership
business on account of an unregistered will executed by her father-in-law R.
Veeraiah. The reconstitution of the partnership firm M/s Venkata Ramana
Enterprises has been ordered by the learned single Judge only till such time
as the civil suit is decided. We find that there is no legal basis for the learned
single Judge to have issued such a direction especially when the matter was
pending before a civil Court and evidence was required to be adduced.
14. In any case, having withdrawn W.P. No.13918 of 2003 filed by the
petitioner R.Sujini along with her husband R. Srinivasa Rao and his brother R.
Prasad, in which they had sought incorporation as partners in M/s Venkata
Ramana Enterprises, they are not entitled in law to seek their incorporation yet
again in the said Enterprise to run the distributorship business. While it may
be true that a withdrawal of a writ petition filed in a High Court without
permission to file a fresh writ petition may not amount to res judicata, yet as
held by the Supreme Court in Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport
Appellate Tribunal, M.P., Gwalior & Others1, "the remedy under Article 226
(1987) 1 SCC 5
HCJ & NJS, J
W.A. Nos: 582 & 583 of 2024
of the Constitution of India should be deemed to have been abandoned by the
petitioner in respect of the cause of action relied on in the writ petition when
he withdraws without such permission". It was held that "the principle
underlying Rule 1 Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure should be
extended in the interests of administration of justice to cases of withdrawal of
writ petitions also, not on the ground of res judicata but on the ground of public
policy".
15. Be that as it may, we find that the petition bearing W.P.No. 12071 of
2023 filed by the petitioner, who is the 1st respondent herein, was not at all
maintainable. We accordingly allow W.A. No.583 of 2024 and set aside the
judgment and order, dated 18.06.2024, passed in W.P. Nos.12071 of 2023.
No costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ
NINALA JAYASURYA, J
akn
HCJ & NJS, J
W.A. Nos: 582 & 583 of 2024
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
Writ Appeal Nos: 582 & 583 of 2024
DATE : 06.09.2024
AKN
