IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.240/2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
KAMADHENU MAHILA STHRI SHAKTHI RATION CARD HOLDERS SOCIETY, NO.45/82, 8TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, MAHADEVAPPA PLOT, NANDINI LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 086.
REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SHIVARAMU H.C., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM & NATURAL GAS, SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., DU PARC TRINITY, 7TH FLOOR, NO.17, M G ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.
3. THE TERRITORIAL MANAGER, BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., DU PARC TRINITY, 7TH FLOOR, NO.17, M G ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GURURAJ YADRAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI N.J.KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMUNICATION DTD:16.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE R-3 AT ANNEXURE-K AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri H.C. Shivaramu, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri Gururaj Yadravi, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
Sri N.J. Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia seeks for a writ of certiorari for quashment of the communication dated 16.11.2017 issued by the respondent No.3 as well as writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the application submitted by the petitioner afresh.
4. The facts giving rise to filing of this petition briefly stated are that the petitioner is a Society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Co- operative Societies Registration Act, 1960. The respondent No.3 issued notification inviting applications for grant of LPG distributorship. The petitioner in response to the aforesaid notification, applied for LPG distributorship to Solur Village, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara District. Thereafter, the petitioner was declared as qualified in the draw of lottery. The petitioner thereafter was asked to get the sketch prepared in respect of the godown premises and the showroom premises. The petitioner submitted the sketch. However, respondent No.3 rejected the application submitted by the petitioner on the ground that the godown premises of the petitioner is situated 20 kms away from the showroom premises and the same are not situated within the territory of 15 kms. The respondent No.3 also forfeited the security deposit of `25,000/- without issuing any notice to the petitioner.
5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed writ petition namely, W.P.No.17863/2015 before this Court and a Bench of this Court quashed the order dated 19.02.2015 and directed the respondents to reconsider the matter. In response to the directions issued by this Court, joint re-verification distance report was drawn on 11.08.2017 and by an order dated 16.11.2017, respondent No.3 issued communication to the petitioner holding that the petitioner’s godown premises is situated at a distance of about 15 kms from the showroom premises and its application for grant of LPG Distributorship cannot be considered. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that in compliance of the order passed by the bench of this Court dated 19.10.2016 in W.P.No.17863/2015, joint re-verification of the distance was carried out, in which the petitioner had participated. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Works Department on 02.01.2019, has issued a certificate that the distance between the godown and the showroom premises of the petitioner is 14.50 kms. Therefore, the petitioner fulfills the eligibility criteria laid down by the respondents. It is also submitted that the impugned communication dated 16.11.2017 be quashed and the respondents be directed to award LPG distributorship to the petitioner.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the joint re-verification of distance was carried out on 11.08.2017 in compliance of the order passed by this Court, in which it was found that the distance between the godown and showroom premises is more than 15 kms. It is further pointed out that the petitioner participated in the aforesaid joint verification of the distance and duly signed the report. Therefore, now the petitioner cannot be permitted to contend that the distance between the showroom and the godown premises is less than 15 kms.
8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records.
9. Admittedly, the bench of this Court by order dated 19.10.2016 passed in W.P.No.17863/2015 directed that joint inspection for re-verification of the distance be carried out. In compliance of the aforesaid directions issued by the bench of this Court, joint re- verification was carried out on 11.08.2017. The petitioner participated in the aforesaid joint re- verification of the distance on 11.08.2017 and prepared the report. The relevant extract of the aforesaid report reads as under:
“With respect to the FVC conducted for the empanelled candidate in application no BLR/SLR/35, joint Re-verification of distance was carried out from Solur to location of Godown as Shown in the application in Plot no 6 & 7, KHB Colony, opp to RMC Yard, Kunigal Town as follows 1. From Showroom in Solur Village to the location of the godown as shown in the application the distance recorded is 23.9 Km (one way).
2. From Solur Panchayat limits to the location of the Godown as shown in the application the distance recorded is 21 Km (one way).”
10. The aforesaid report has been admittedly signed by the petitioner. In other words, the petitioner who was present at the time of joint re-verification of distance has admitted the distance between the showroom and the godown premises and do not make any complaint when the joint re-verification of distance was carried out.
11. Subsequently, the Assistant Executive Engineer has issued communication dated 02.01.2019 which is addressed to the Territory Manager (LPG), M/s. Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited stating that the distance between the showroom and the godown is 14.5 kms. The aforesaid certificate reads as under:
“With reference to the above this is to certified that the distance from Solur Village, Magadi taluk, Ramanagara District to Flat No.6 & 7, Ward No.18, Small Scale Industries Area, Opp. To RMC Yard, KHB Colony, Kunigal Town is about 14.50 KM. This is for your information.”
12. Thus, from a perusal of the aforesaid certificate, it is evident that aforesaid certificate has been issued in pursuance of the request made by the petitioner and the aforesaid certificate does not disclose as to on what basis the Assistant Executive Engineer has recorded conclusion that the distance between the showroom and the godown premises of the petitioner is less than 15 kms.
13. Admittedly, inspection, if any, has not been carried out in the presence of the respondents. Therefore, the aforesaid certificate cannot bind the respondents which has been issued subsequently. The petitioner itself has admitted the distance between the location of the showroom and the godown as is evident from the joint re-verification report dated 11.08.2017 which has been duly signed by the petitioner without any demur. Therefore, at this point of time, the petitioner cannot turn around and contend that the distance between the showroom and the godown premises is less than 15 kms.
In view of the preceding analysis, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. In the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE ca