Kalluri Ravi vs Union Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 2386 Tel

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                             AND

   THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR


                 WRIT APPEAL No.441 of 2023


JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)


      Ms.   B.Rachna     Reddy,    learned    Senior    Counsel

representing Mr. Boya Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for

the appellant.

      Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor

General of India for respondent No.1.

      Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Standing Counsel

for respondent Nos.2 and 3.


      2.    Heard on the question of admission.


      3.    This intra court appeal emanates from an order

dated 12.09.2022 passed in W.P.No.14683 of 2021 by

learned Single Judge of this Court, by which writ petition

preferred by the appellant has been dismissed.
                              ::2::



      4.    Facts

giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly

stated are that a Letter of Intent (hereinafter referred to as

'LOI') was issued to the appellant on 20.08.2018 in respect

of an LPG distributorship at Alwalpad Village of Jogulamba

Gadwal District. The appellant offered land bearing Survey

No.70/A of Kothulagidda Village for construction of LPG

godown, which was accepted by the Indian Oil Corporation

Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'IOCL').

5. The land offered by the appellant was close to

railway track. Therefore, the South Central Railway by an

order dated 06.11.2019 refused to issue No Objection

Certificate (NOC) to the appellant for setting up of the LPG

godown. The appellant thereupon took another land

situated within the periphery of One (01) kilometer of the

land which was initially offered by the appellant and made

a request to IOCL to consider the alternate land for

construction of LPG godown. The aforesaid request was

rejected by IOCL by an order dated 18.02.2020. The

appellant challenged the aforesaid order in a writ petition

namely W.P.No.14683 of 2021. The learned Single Judge ::3::

by an order dated 12.09.2022 has dismissed the aforesaid

writ petition. In the aforesaid factual background, this

appeal has been filed.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant

submitted that the IOCL did not give opportunity to the

appellant to construct the LPG godown on the alternate

land. It is further submitted that the guidelines issued in

the year 2016 were wrongly applied to the case of

respondent No.4 and he has been granted time to

construct the LPG godown beyond the time line fixed in

this regard. It is also pointed out that respondent No.4 has

not taken any steps to commission the LPG godown.

Therefore, the LOI made in favour of respondent No.4

should be cancelled.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for IOCL

submits that action has been taken in accordance with the

prevalent guidelines and does not suffer from any infirmity.

It is further submitted that in case the appellant wanted

extension of time for making available the initial land

offered by him for construction of the LPG godown, the ::4::

same would have been granted to him. It is also pointed

out that the request of the appellant seeking permission to

construct the LPG godown on the alternate land was

considered by a committee of officers and the same has

been turned down for the reasons recorded in the Minutes

of Meeting dated 10.10.2019. It is also submitted that the

order dated 18.02.2020 does not suffer from any infirmity

warranting interference in exercise of powers of judicial

review. It is also contended that time has been granted to

respondent No.4 till 31.10.2023 and in case he fails to

complete the work of commissioning of LPG godown, the

letter of intent issued in favour of respondent No.4 shall be

cancelled and a re-draw shall be held.

8. We have considered the rival submissions made

on both sides and have perused the record.

9. Admittedly, the appellant has no legal right to

seek appointment as an LPG distributor. The appellant

has only a right to be treated fairly by IOCL. In the instant

case, upon issuance of LOI, the appellant offered the land.

The appellant was required to commission the ::5::

distributorship as per Clause 5.1 of the LOI within a period

of four (04) months i.e., 19.12.2018. However, on the land

offered by the appellant, the LPG godown could not be

constructed as it was situated in the close proximity of the

railway track. Thereupon the petitioner after a period of

approximately seven (07) months offered an alternate land

for construction of LPG godown. The suitability of the

aforesaid alternate land was assessed by the officers of the

IOCL and thereafter the same has been rejected.

10. The order dated 18.02.2020 has been passed on

valid and cogent reasons. The issue whether or not the

alternate site is suitable for construction of LPG

distributorship has to be decided by officers of IOCL. This

Court in exercise of powers of judicial review cannot decide

the suitability of the alternate land offered by the

appellant. The decision taken by IOCL does not suffer from

any infirmity warranting interference of this Court in

exercise of powers of judicial review.

::6::

11. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find

any ground to differ with the conclusion arrived at by the

learned Single Judge.

12. In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly

dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if

any, shall stand closed.

_______________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ

_______________________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J

Date: 14.09.2023 KL