IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.564 OF 2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI.K.N.NAGARAJA, S/O K.N.NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O GANDHINAGAR, MAGADI TOWN – 562 120, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
(BY SRI. M.R.RAJAGOPAL, ADV. - ABSENT) AND:
1. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, BY ITS DIRECTOR (MARKETING), MUMBAI – 400 009.
2. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, BY ITS CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER – RETAIL, #77, OLD MADRAS ROAD, DOORAVANINAGAR POST, KRISHNARAJAPURAM, BANGALORE – 560 016.
3. THE MANAGER – RE & MIS, HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, #77, OLD MADRAS ROAD, DOORAVANINAGAR POST, … PETITIONER KRISHNARAJAPURAM, BANGALORE – 560 016.
(BY SRI. KRISHNOJI RAO, ADV., FOR ...RESPONDENTS SRI. B.PRAMOD, ADVs., FOR R1 & R2; R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMUNICATION/LETTER DATED 07.04.2015 ISSUED BY THE R-2 AS PER ANNEXURE R AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R None appear for the petitioner.
Mr. Krishnoji Rao, learned Counsel for Mr. B. Pramod, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned Counsel for the respondents, the matter is heard finally.
2. In this writ petition, petitioner has assailed the validity of the communication dated 7.4.2015 by which respondent-Corporation has directed the petitioner to arrange for suitable site anywhere on or before 31.03.2016, failing which the offer issued in favour of the petitioner shall stand cancelled.
3. The facts giving rise to filing of the petition briefly stated are that the respondent-Corporation invited applications for selection of retail outlet dealers in various parts in the State of Karnataka and a separate scheme was introduced by the Government in the name and style of “Corpus Fund Scheme”. The petitioner obliged for sanction of retail outlet points. The petitioner, thereafter was called for interview and later communication was issued in favour of the petitioner, by which the petitioner was asked to furnish location of sites to enable the respondent-Corporation to proceed further with the matter.
4. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner offered three site locations at different places which were inspected by the Technical Evaluation Committee of the respondent. However, the petitioner was asked to again provide a further location. The petitioner, thereupon provided location situated in Sy. No.143/1 situated between Tumakuru and Kunigal which was also inspected by the Technical Evaluation Committee. It is further averred in the petition that the report of the Technical Evaluation Committee was in favour of the petitioner.
5. The respondent-Corporation, thereafter called upon the petitioner to furnish original documents. However, it is the case of the petitioner that the land owner declined to provide original agreement. The petitioner, thereafter was issued communication dated 7.4.2015 to get suitable site anywhere on or before 31.03.2016 failing which the offer shall stand cancelled. In the aforesaid factual background, petitioner has approached this Court.
6. The matter is pending before this Court since 2016 in which no interim order has been passed. Time given to the petitioner to provide suitable location already expired. Therefore, prima facie, nothing survives for adjudication in this writ petition. However, from perusal of the petition, it appears that the petitioner has made a request to the respondent to handover any retail outlet in the nearby vicinity of Dobaspet of Nelamangala Taluk or any other area both Urban and Rural. However, the aforesaid request has not been considered by the respondent.
This petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority of the respondent to consider the request made by the petitioner in accordance with law, if not already considered, by a speaking order within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE AN/-