Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: KADAPA in Kanala Obula Konda Reddy vs 1. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... on 27 August, 2012Matching Fragments
This writ petition has been taken out by Kanala Obula Konda Reddy seeking mandamus declaring the action of the Senior Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, LPG Regional Office, Anantapur, A.P.-2nd respondent in issuing the proceedings vide Ref.No.SSP/LPG, dated 06.05.2010, disqualifying him as LPG Dealership/Distributorship of Duvvur Village and Mandal, Kadapa District, as illegal and arbitrary. The consequential relief to set aside the letter of intent, dated 09.08.2010, issued in favour of Ms.Arundhathi Gangi Reddy- 5th respondent, has also been sought for.
2. 1st respondent is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Its function, inter alia, is allotment of grant of LPG Distributorship. An advertisement was issued by the 2nd respondent on 01.10.2007 in EENADU daily newspaper in Andhra Pradesh inviting applications for appointment of LPG Dealership/Distributorship of Duvvur Village and Mandal, Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh, under open category. The petitioner completed his Bachelor Degree of Engineering in Mechanical Branch in the year 1980 from Mysore Univesity and Post Graduation in the same Branch in the year 1992 from Bharathiar University. He is a gold-medalist in Graduation and Post-Graduation. He submitted application on 31.10.2007 for allotment of LPG Dealership of Duvvur. Ms.Arundhathi Gangi Reddy-5th respondent also submitted application pursuant to the notification, dated 01.10.2007 issued by the 2nd respondent. The selection committee empanelled the candidates for appointment of LPG Dealership/Distributorship of Duvvur Village and Mandal, Kadapa District. The petitioner stood at Sl.No.1. Whereas, the 5th respondent stood at Sl.No.2 in among the empanelled candidates. The field verification committee of the 1st respondent noticed certain variations with regard to financial items in the application of the petitioner and submitted its report. Basing on the said field verification report, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice, dated 22.03.2010, calling the petitioner to submit necessary documents as to proof of balance of Rs.3,00,000/- in his S.B. account as on the date of application i.e., 30.10.2007. The petitioner submitted explanation to the show cause notice. He asserted in the explanation that on the date of submitting the application, he got requisite amount to his credit in the S.B. Account. The 2nd respondent found the explanation not satisfactory and thereby proceeded to disqualify the petitioner for allotment of LPG Dealership/Distributorship of Duvvur Village and Mandal, Kadapa District and informed the same to the petitioner under letter, dated 06.05.2010, and consequent on disqualifying the petitioner, letter of intent, dated 09.08.2010, came to be issued to Ms.Arundhathi Gangi Reddy-5th respondent, who stands at Sl.No.2 among the empanelled candidates. Hence, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition questioning the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent in disqualifying him and also in issuing letter of intent, dated 09.08.2010, in favour of the 5th respondent. For better understanding the grievance of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to refer para.8 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, and it is thus:
10. Sri Thoom Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submits that the relevant date for consideration is the date on which the petitioner filled the application and as the petitioner filled the application on 30.10.2007, he has to satisfy that necessary amount has been to his credit in the S.B. Account and that an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- credited to his S.B.Account on 31.10.2010, the said amount cannot be taken into account to satisfy the necessary requisite of the deposit of the amount in the S.B. Account. In a way, his contention is that as on the date of filling the application, an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was not to the credit of the S.B. Account of the petitioner and therefore, the 2nd respondent was justified in disqualifying the petitioner after putting on show-cause notice and considering the explanation. Since the action of the 2nd respondent is after giving opportunity to the petitioner to explain the deficiencies, it cannot be found fault. It is also submitted by him that there are other deficiencies in the eligibility criteria of the petitioner and therefore, he does not deserve for allotment of LPG Dealership/Distributorship of Duvvur Village and Mandal, Kadapa District.
11. Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent submits that the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. It is further submitted by him that the 5th respondent spent huge amount and any interference in the allotment of LPG Dealership/Distributorship of Duvvur Village and Mandal, Kadapa District, to the 5th respondent would cause substantial loss to her, and therefore, on the principle of equity, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Virender Chaudhary v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation1.