M/s. Venkateshwara H.P.Gas Agency v. The State of Telangana
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: B.VIJAYSEN REDDY
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2025-12-15. M/s. Venkateshwara H.P.Gas Agency v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details...
Judgment text
[ 3183 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEI\4BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 25017 OF 2025 Between: fvl/s. Venkateshwara H. P. Gas Agency, Kadipikonda Villrage, Kazipet [Vlandal Hanumakonda District, Rep. by the Proprietor R. Srikanth, S/o R. Sadanandam, Aged 41 yrs. , Occ. Business R/o H. No. '1-7-1344, Advocates Colony Hanumakonda. ... PETITIONER AND 1, The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Kakatiya Urban Development Authority, Rep. by its Vice Chairman, KUDA, Hanumakonda. ...
RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a WRIT OF TUANDAN/US, declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in rejecting the application made by the Writ Petitioner vide online application M1CO300618141775, daled 03. 05. 2025 through TSIPASS for Construction of Gas Godown in Sy. No. 394/82, ad-measuring 1416. 4 Sq. Yards, situated at Kadipikonda Village, Kazipet Mandal of Hanumakonda District is illegal, arbitrary and consequeiitly direct the 2nd Respondent to consider the representation dated 17. O7. 2025 and grant construction permission for Construction of Gas Godown in Sy. No. 394/82, ad-measuring 1416. 4 Sq.
Yards, situated at Kadipikonda Village, Kazipet tMandal of Hanumakonda District lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 2nd Respondent to consider the application made by the Writ Petitioner vide online application M1CO300618141775, dated 03. 05. 2025 through TS|PASS by granting permission for'Construction of Gas Godown in Sy. No. 394lB2, ad-measuring 1416. 4 Sq. Yards, situated at l. (adipikonda Village, Kazipet lt/andal of Hanumakonda District Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. J. VENKATESWARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No. I : GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: SRt SAIFULLA BIAG, SC) FOR KUDA The Gourt made the following: ORDER -:l IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE B. VIIAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 25017 OF 2025 DATE OF ORDER: 15. 12.
2025 Between: tWs. Venkateshwara H. P. Gas Agency Petitioner AND The State of Telangana Represented by its Principal Secretary Municipal Administration & Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents ORDER: (ORAL) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of respondent No. 2 in rejecting its application vide online application No. MIC030061841775 dated 03. 05. 2025 submitted through TG-iPASS for construction of gas godown in the land admeasuring 1416. 4 square yards in Survey No. 394lB2, situated at Kadipikonda Village, Kazipet Mandal, Hanumakonda District, as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and consequently, direct respondent No. 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 17. 07. 2025 for grant of building permission for construction of gas godown in the subject propertY --,i6-q \ 2 - \ 2- Heard Mr. J. Venkateshwara Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.
Saifulla Baig, leamed Standing Counsel for KUDA (Kakatiya Urban Development Authority), appearing for respondent No. 2; and perused the material on record. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that inZ0l3,the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation L,imited, (for short '[IPCL'), issued News Paper Advertisement on 15. 09. 2013 inviting applications for appointment of LPG Distributorship at various places including at Kazipet, Hanumakonda District (previously Warangal District) under Open Category. The petitioner made application on 18. 11. 2013, and upon verification of the documents and considering its eligibility, the petitioner was appointed as HPCL LPG Distributor for its gas outlet at Kazipet, Hanumakonda District. However, FIPCL for various reasons best known did not initiate steps to process and finalize the arvarding of the distributorship tlll 2022.
The HPCL issued call letters to all the eligible candidates who are eligible in accordance with the Dealer Selection Guidelines, 2013 (for short 'Guidelines 2013') who are eligible for drawal of lots of selection of LPG Distributors and in the said drawal, one Mr. Punnama Chander Pulyala was successfirl candidate, and therefore the I{PCL issued letter for depositifi! refundable security amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only). However, on further verification of the land offered by Mr. punnama chandar, it was found that the land was not meeting the minimum required dimensions of 25 x 30 meters and his application was rejected as per the Guidelir,es 2013. The said rejection was challenged by Mr. punnama Chandar in W. P. No. 95l I of 2023 before this Court and the order dared 12-03. 2024 was passed dismissing the said writ petition. It is submitted that that the HPCL conducted a re-drawal on 19. 04.
2023 and the petitioner was declared as successful applicant and the same was communicated to the petitioner by the HPCL through letter vide Ref. No. HLRoA4G/PM, dated 21. 04. 2023. pursuant therero, the petitioner deposited Rs. 25,000/- through Demand Draft and also submitted all the necessary documents as per the conditions mentioned in the application. The FIPCL verified the documents submiued. by the petitioner and issued Letter of Intent (LOI) vide proceedings in Ref. No. HLRoilvIGA4SR, dated 12. 03. 2025, for establishment of LPG Distributorship outlet at Kazipet on certain conditions. 4- tt is further submitted that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Acs. 0-14 guntas in Survey No. 39 4182, situated at Kadipikonda Village, Kazipet Mandal, Hanumakonda District having *ra \ -- \ purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing document No. 16752 of 2016 dated 30. 11. 2016 from its previous owner by name Mr. Kusuma Satesh.
The said plot is facing 40 feet Master Plan Road and the. petitioner intended to construct LPG Godown in the said plot and applied for construction of LPG godown pursuant to its distributorship issued by the HPCL. As the land is classified as agricultural land, the petitioner got it converted from agricultural land to non-agricultural land vide proceedings No. 2400420205 dated 05. 07. 2024 issued by the Tahasildar, Kazipet. That the petitioner made an application to the Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation (GWMC) under Layout Regularization Scheme, 2020 (LRS) and permission was granted by the GWMC vde proceedings No. C/GWMC10566589 12020 dated 25. 03. 2025. The petitioner also obtained permission from the Petroleum and Explosives Saf-ety Organization vLle proceedings @ESCO) No. A/G/SFV TG/06/728(G49076) dated 15. 04. 2025 for approval of construction of LPG Cylinder Storage.
Subsequently, on application of the petitioner, the GWMC granted No Objection Certificate (NOC) for proposed construction of LPG Cylinder Godown vide proceedings in Rc. No. HO/GWMCIDFO/E-14642312025 dated 26. 05. 2025. The petitioner paid development charges to respondent No. 2 through demand draftvide D. D. No. 545248 dated 26. 05. 2025 / / I ,\ 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after receipt of the LOI dated 1,2. 03. 2025, the petitioner submitted application through TS-iPASS dated 03. 05. 2025 seeking permission for construction of LPG Godown in the subject property and the petitioner uploaded all necessary documents along with the application including the NOC issued by the GWMC and the permission issued by the PESCO. That recently, the petitioner came to know that respondent No. 2 rejected its application on 18. 06. 2025, stating "the applicant has without upload the NOCs and Road Effected Area Documents, Payment of Development Charges, may not be considered'.
The action of respondent No. 2 in rejecting the application of the petitioner without veriffing the documents submitted, is illegal and arbitrary and the same is in violation of principles of natural justice. As such, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court. 6. In the counter affidavit frled by respondent No. 2, it is stated that the proposals of the petitioner in TS-iPASS have been examined and it was observed that the petitioner has shown 40 feet road as approach road to the Gas Godown in the plan. But whereas the respondent authorities approved the layouts with existing 60 feet road to be widened to 100 feet road which is leading from Kadipikonda Village to Tharalapalli Village The proposed site is opposite to the Surya Kuteer layout which was L;';ff'-by KUDA showing as 100 feet approach' road through 5gl2}l9 and 2712022.
Further, the GWMC has also approved layouts and one (l) is under process showing the road as 100 feet As such, the petitioner was informed shortfall on 18. 06. 2025 that the approach road has to be widened from 60 feet to 100 feet The following are the details of the layouts sanctioned by the and GWMC: Extent in Width of Approach Proposed/ Name of the ut Acs-Gts road Approved 14 100 feet a tech 84- Approved 7-24 100 feet Approved feet Modern Structures 6-07 100 Approved and Deve 100 feet Approved IWs. Dhatri lnfra 3-06 Dev feet Under Sri T'irumala 14-30 100 process DeveloPsrs- is further submitted that as the existing village road is 60 feet, the has shown it as 40 feet road in the proposed plan, the petitioner required to submit revised plans showing the road effected area as roa{ to examine the proposals in the matter.
Further, developments along/abutting the said road are coming up as per 100 road and the petitioner has shown the same as I00 feet road and permission is granted with 40 feet road, it will be a bottle neck alignment of Road/Right of way. / \ih- / 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned rejection letter dated 18. 06. 2025 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law laid down by this Court in W. P. No. 358 of 2024. The existing road 40 feet and not 60 feet as alleged by respondent No. 2. However, if 60 feet, the petitioner would submit revised plan but respondent cannot insist the petitioner to leave the width of 100 feet as per the master plan. That merely because neighbouring layouts are sanctioned with feet road, the same road width cannot be imposed on the petitioner. The land of the petitioner is a small extent admeasuring 1416. 4 square yards and moreover, the master plan is not implemented. g.
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for respondent submitted that the same road alignment/pattern has to be maintained abutting the site of the petitioner as the surrounding layouts have 100 road access as,per the master plan. Thus, if the petitioner is granted permission for construction of LPG outlet, it will be a bottle neck for movement of vehicles. 10. Learned Standing Counsel furnished Google maps and copies layouts of Surya Agritech vide KIJDA D. P. No. 59/2019 and KUDA D. P. No. 2712022. The two (2) layouts show '100 feet proposed road ,:, , j. ,.. ,,1r"'.. '. f: itj'. *#it' P-ICir:' per the master plan204l'. The case of the respondents is that the existing road width abutting the subject property of the petitioner is 100 feet. As seen from the paragraph No. 9 of the counter affidavit, existing road is 60 feet and not 40 feet as shown by the petitioner in his application.
Merely because the other layout owners have left the road setback by showing 100 feet proposed master plan, such condition cannot be imposed on the petitioner. ll. This Court in W. P. No. 358 of 2024 dated 08. 01. 2024 held as under: aa 9. This Court, in WP. No. 29024 of 2023, dt. 17. 10. 2A23, took note of the dicta laid down by the erstwhile High Court of A. P. in G. Usha Rani vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, wherein it has been held as under: "[t is incumbent on the part of the respondents to initiate proceedings under Section 18 of the AP Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 in accordance with the provisions of the'Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for acquisition of the land of the petitioner for road widening and pay compensation to the petitioner. [f not, the petitioner woulj be deprived of her valuable property ,without compensation. " 10. This Court in WP. No.
29024 of 2023 funher observed that even if the master plan is notified, the authorities cannot seek to den1, grant of permission, unless the property is being shown as open area in the master plan. I 1. In the present case, since it is not shown to this Court of the respondents-authorities initiating any steps to acquire the t' land of the petitioner being shown as covered by Master plan 100 feet road, the respondents-authorities cannot deprive the petitioner of enjoyment of her valtialire property by making construction therein, by refusing to grant uuitding permission. )) \ 12.. In view of the above order, unless the subject property of the petitioner is acquired for the proposed road widening (as per master plan), the respondent authorities cannot insist the petitioner to lea,ie 100 feet road width as a precondition for sanctioning permission.
However, it needs to be noted that the petitioner claimed width of the road abutting f the subject property is 40 feet whereas according to the respondents, it is ( 60 feet. Thus, it is needless to state that the petitioner needs to make revised building application if the existing road width is 60 feet. The actual width of the road shall be properly verified by the authorities with reference. to the relevant documents and site inspection, and by furnishing details of the same to the petitioner and affording opportunity of hearing to him. 13. In view of the above observations, this writ petition is allowed. Respondent No. 2 is directed to consider the application of the petitioner without insisting him to leave the road affected area as per the master plan, within a period of twenty one (2 I ) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order- There shall be no order as to costs.
t,l S1_ As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. SD/-P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (9 //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Telangana Secreta riat, T. S. , Hyderabad. 2. The Vice Chairman, Kakatiya Urban Developmerrt Authority, KUDA, Hanumakonda. : 3. One CC to SRl. J. VENKATESWARA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADTUINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPNIENT ,High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad TOUTJ 5. One CC to SRl. SAIFULLA BAIG, SC FOR KUDA [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies \ BM GJP & / / CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED:1 511212025 1HE S lA ( C) o z. 1s oEc ? $fi * ORDER WP. No. 25017 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS q
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.