P.Vidya Sagar, v. Union Of India, Rep. By Its Secretary,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.11626 of 2015 BETWEEN P. Vidyasagar.
... PETITIONER AND Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. B. KRISHNA MOHAN Counsel for the Respondents: MR. B. NARAYANA REDDY MR. D. FERNANDEZ MR. C. MADHU MR. T.V. RAMANA GP FOR HOME The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Petitioner, who seeks to object the establishment of petroleum outlet in his neighbourhood at Road No.82, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, is aggrieved by non-consideration to his objections.
2. Petitioner states that he has filed various representations from 2010 to 2012 and further on 29.11.2014 and 18.03.2015 against the proposal of respondent No.7 for establishing petroleum outlet. However, none of the said objections/representations were considered by any of the authorities, hence, the present writ petition is filed.
3. Mr. Deepak Bhattarchajee, learned standing counsel for the second respondent corporation, has placed before this Court copy of the proceedings of the Jubilee Hills Cooperative House Building Society Limited dated 12.08.2014 wherein no objection was given for establishment of petroleum outlet at Plot No.10, Phase III, Road No.82, Jubilee Hills. Learned standing counsel also placed before this Court a copy of the no objection certificate granted by the Commissioner of Police for the proposed petroleum outlet subject to various conditions 1 to 10 set out in the said certificate. In addition, the Controller of Explosives had already permitted the second respondent to store petroleum products to the specified quantity at the aforesaid premises in terms of Rule 148 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002. A set of the aforesaid documents is already furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. In view of the above, therefore, it is apparent that all the statutory clearances are granted to respondent No.7, as is evident from the documents, referred to above. Hence, at the moment, the grievance of the petitioner does not survive for consideration. However, the petitioner is at liberty to re-examine the matter in the light of the documents, referred to above and if he is still aggrieved, he is at liberty to take appropriate steps as permissible under law. The writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J June 1, 2015 DSK