IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION No.43426/2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SMT. NANDAKUMARI T.A., W/O T.M. SUNDARESH, AGED ABOUTG 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.368, KOMAL NILAYA,,OFFICERS LAYOUT, DODDAIAHANAPALYA, HALEPALYA TIPTUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 201.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI LOHITASWA BANAKAR, ADVOCATE - ABSENT) AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, NEW DELHI – 110 001.
REP BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. CHIEF AREA MANAGER, INDIAN CORPORATION LIMITED, MARKETING DIVISION, IDANE AREA OFFICE, 4TH FLOOR, UNITY BUILDING, JCW ROAD, BANGALORE-02.
3. THE DY. GENERAL MANAGER, INDIAN CORPORATION LIMITED., MARKETING DIVISION, IDANE AREA OFFICE, 4TH FLOOR, UNITY BUILDING, JCW ROAD, BANGALORE-02 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JEEVAN K., CGC, FOR R1, SRI VIGHNESHWAR S. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF REJECTION OF THE CANDIDATURE OF THE PETITIONER DTD:20.09.2018 FOR THE LPG DISTRIBUTION TO THE SAKKAREPATTANA AT ANNEXURE-C, ISSUED BY THE R-2 AND THE ADVERTISEMENT FOR RE-DRAW DTD:25.9.2018 IN PRAJAVANI DAILY IN SO FAR AS TO THE LPG DISTRIBUTION TO THE SAKKAREPATTANA AT SL NO.14 AT ANNEXURE-D, SCHEDULING THE RE-DRAW FOR SELECTION FOR SAKKAREPATTANA, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS, DIRECT THE R-2 AND 3 TO CONSIDER THE CANDIDATURE AND THEREBY ALLOT DEALERSHIP IN LPG DISTRIBUTION IN SAKKAREPATTANA THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R None for the petitioner.
Sri Jeevan K, the learned Central Government Counsel for respondent No.1.
Sri Vighneshwar S. Shastri, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia seeks a writ of certiorari for quashment of the impugned order of rejection of the candidature of the petitioner dated 20.9.2018, as well as the advertisement issued by the respondent No.2 for re-draw of the lot dated 25.9.2018 in daily newspaper, namely Prajavani insofar as it pertains to the LPG distributorship to Sakkarepattana contained in Annexure-D. The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the candidature and allot dealership for LPG distribution at Sakkarepattana to the petitioner.
3. The facts giving rise to filing of the present writ petitions briefly stated are that on 17.8.2017, the respondents issued advertisement for selection of distributorship of LPG agency in the State of Karnataka. The petitioner being eligible submitted her application. The respondents by communication dated 11.1.2018 informed that the petitioner has succeeded in the draw. As per the terms and conditions of the advertisement, the petitioner was required to produce the documents with regard to the ownership of the land for showroom on the last date of submission of application, i.e., 7.10.2017. Admittedly, on the aforesaid date, the petitioner did not own showroom as required under the terms and conditions of the advertisement. The petitioner instead of producing the documents pertaining to ownership with regard to showroom in the advertisement location, produced lease agreement. Since the petitioner did not own the showroom in the advertised location, therefore by communication dated 20.9.2018, the petitioner was informed that she is not eligible for selection of LPG distributorship, since she does not own the land for showroom in the advertised location at Sakkarepattana on the last date of submission of application i.e., 7.10.2017. Accordingly, the amount of Rs.40,000/- deposited by the petitioner with the Corporation was forfeited. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the relief supra.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributors, the petitioner did not own suitable land for show room in the advertised location on the last date of submission of the application and therefore in terms of the aforesaid clause, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected. The aforesaid decision is taken in accordance with the Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributors. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS v.
SWAPNIL SINGH’, dated 8.9.2015 in Civil Appeal Nos.6928-6929/2015 as well as decision of this Court in the case of ‘JYOTHI A.G. v. THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS’ dated 10.12.2018 in W.P.No.48993- 48994/2018.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and perused the record.
6. The relevant extract of the guidelines with regard to the ownership of the suitable shop for showroom reads as under:
“The applicant should ‘Own’ a suitable shop for Showroom of minimum size 3 metre by 4.5 metre in outer dimension or a plot of land for construction of showroom of minimum size 3 metre by 4.5 metre as on the last date for submission of application as specified either in the advertisement or corrigendum (if any) at the advertised location i.e. within the municipal/town/village limits of the place which is mentioned under the column of ‘location’ in the advertisement.”
7. Thus, it is evident as per the terms and conditions of the guidelines for selection of the LPG distributorship that the applicant was required to have suitable shop for showroom on the last date of submission of the application. Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioner did not have suitable shop for show room on the last date of submission of the application dated 7.10.2017. Thus, the petitioner was not eligible for selection for LPG distributorship. Therefore, by communication dated 20.9.2018, the petitioner was informed that she is not eligible for selection for LPG distributorship, as she does not own showroom in question. The aforesaid decision has been taken by the respondents in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the guidelines and the aforesaid decision by no stretch of imagination can said to be either arbitrary or perverse. Therefore, no interference is called for in exercise of extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which even otherwise are discretionary in nature.
8. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE MD