High Court for State of TelanganaWP/5973/2015dismissed

Kesireddy Yadagiri Reddy, v. The State Of Telangana, Rep. By Its Principal Secretary,

2015-03-10Vilas V.Afzulpurkar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.5973 of 2015 BETWEEN Kesireddy Yadagiri Reddy and two others.

... PETITIONERS AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.

...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. P. SRI HARSHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME (TG) GP FOR REVENUE (TG) The Court made the following:

ORDER:

Petitioners, who claim to be residents of Padmaraonagar,

Zamistanpur, Secunderabad, are opposing the setting up of the petroleum out by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL).

2. However, in the cause title it is shown as if the Manager of HPCL is the respondent and not the company. However, ignoring the said aspect also, the petitioners seek to question the no objection certificate granted to HPCL by the competent authority as early as 30.06.2012. As on today, no work has been commissioned at the site even as per the instructions of the learned standing counsel for respondent No.4. Hence, the contention of the petitioners that the conditions 3 and 4 of the no objection certificate are likely to be violated by HPCL cannot be a ground to entertain the writ petition at this stage. The writ petition appears speculative and premature and appears to have been engineered to ensure that no HPCL outlet comes anywhere in the locality. The no objection having been granted by a competent authority, it is assumed that the competent authority has followed the guidelines and has already put sufficient conditions in the no objection certificate, which are required to be followed.

The writ petition is meritless and it is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J March 10, 2015 DSK