B.L. NAGI REDDY v. THE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
petitioner, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Judgment
Cause title
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to stop all further activities for establishing the retail outlet in the land of the respondent No.9 which is located at Yemmiganur- Kurnool road within a distance of less than 100mts. from the retail outlet of the petitioner pending disposal of the Writ Petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. M INDRANI
2. GP FOR HOME (AP)
3. GP FOR REVENUE (AP)
4. V R REDDY KOVVURI 3 The Court made the following
ORDER:
Operative part
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication. Recording the submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Dated: 05.01.2026 KAS __________________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM 4 35 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 24158/2018 Dated: 05.01.2026 KAS
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: petitioner, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 05 Jan 2026. The bench was SUMATHI JAGADAM.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.