One CC to SRI v. JAGAPATHI

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. V JAGAPATHI Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 'lto3: SRI O. PRADEEP, , GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4to6: AGP FOR REVEI I rE Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRI DOMINIC FERNAI| )ES, SC FOR BPCL The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION N0.7360 0F 2014 ORDER: This Writ Petition is frled under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief/s:- "--.to issue a Writ, Order or direction, more particula-rly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in interfering with insta.llation of Retail Outlet sarrctio.,ed to the Petitioner, by the 7th Respondent, under ST category, in the patta land in Sy No.22lvl3, extent 1111' 11 Sq ya-rai, tut ot tolal extent of Ac.O.25 1/2 guntas, situated in -Shiurnipally village accounts, Ghanpur (Station) Mandal, Jangaon District, as arbitrarlz, highhanded, i egal and contrary to liw and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent not to interfere with instaliation of Retail Outtet of the Petitioner in the said land in Sy No.22/E/3, extent 1111.11 Sq yards in the light of No Objection Certihcate in Rc.No.C/672 l2Ol7, dr'27 'O9 2Ol7 issued by the Joint Collector / 5th Respondent, and with atl other consequenLia-t benefits and pass......"

2. Heard Mr.Jagapathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr'Dominic Fernandes' learned Standing Counsel for respondent No'7/BPCL'

3. karned counsel for the petitioner submits that as respondent No. 3 has been interfering with the insta-llation o[ a Retail Outlet of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Warangal' at the instance of its Territory Manager/respondent No'7' the present writ petition has been hled seeking appropriate directions from this Court.

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader i r Home and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for res;'r ndent No 7 submit that the Retail Outlet was sanctioned in tl c year 2019, and operational permission has already been g' nted by the competent authorities and the outlet is functional z I on this date' Hence, it is submitted that the contention raised l;" the petitioner does not survive for consideration.

5. I have perused the material placed on recortl.

6. Having regard to the submissions made b1 t lth sides and in view of the developments that have taken pl: :': during the pendency of this writ petition, it is evident that t L 3 grievance of the petitioner has been effectively redressed llonsequently, nothing further remains for adjudication in this rn I ler.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed : ; infructuous, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail appro: -rate remedies available under laq, including revival of this petit < rr, il the cause of action still survives. There shall be no order as - | costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, sh,r I stand closed. Sd/.I; MALLIKARJUNA RAO AS SISTANT REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// \ secnoru oFFrcER To,

1. One CC to SRI V. JAGAPATHI, Advocate [OPUCI Hyderabad [OUTI z. lwo OCs to Gp FOR HOME ,High Court for the State of Telangana at 3. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE High Court for the State of Tetangana, at 1 9n" 99 to SRt DOM|N|C FERNANDES, SC FoR BPCL [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] h- PMK BM HIGH COURT DATED:0311112025 ORDER WP.No.7360 of 2018 i I It\ .) O O f * oRlrl S 13 )an l)t. ( * DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS II.JFRUCTOUS WITHOUT COSTS 61 I 1a "L' \ar,