N. Pramod Kumar, v. Union Of India,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No.39559 OF 2014 ORDER:

Heard Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondents 1 to 3, Sri Thoom Srinivas, learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5, Sri Vedula Srinivas for respondent No.7 and Sri C.Kumar, learned counsel for respondents 6 and 8.

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief :- "...............Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent Nos.2 & 3, in taking steps to renew the storage license to the Respondent No.6 despite receiving the complaint dated 03.12.2014 lodged by the petitioner, as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the Petroleum Act, 1934 and the Petroleum Rules, 2002 and consequently direct the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 not to renew the storage license to the Respondent No.6 and pass such other order................" It has been contended by the petitioner that Sree Siddi Vinayaka Filling Station-6th respondent which is located adjacent to his land was granted storage license contrary to the Rules. Therefore, he made a complaint on 03.12.2014 requesting the respondents not to renew the storage license of the 6th respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of his giving complaint, the respondents are not acting on the said complaint.

Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the respondents to consider the complaint given by the petitioner on 03.12.2014 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

Learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for respondents contends that the case of the petitioner would be considered and appropriate orders would be passed in accordance with law.

This Court, having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, is of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the respondents 2 and 3 to consider the complaint given by the petitioner on 03.12.2014 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to say that the respondents 2 and 3 while considering the complaint given by the petitioner shall give reasonable opportunity to the 6th and 8th respondents before passing any orders.

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J Date: 06-02-2020 dv