IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.46078 OF 2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI. MANJUNATH R S/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT DODDAHARALAGERI VILLAGE BENDIGANAHALLI POST SULEBELE HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BEGNALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 129. (By Mr. B. PRABHUDEVA, ADV.) AND:
1. THE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED BENGALURU LPG REGIONAL OFFICE NO.3 AND 4, WHITEFIELD ROAD MAHADEVAPURA POST BENGALURU-560 048 BY ITS CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER.
2. SRI. RAJESH H T S/O THIPPARAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT HOSUR VILLAGE AND POST BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562 109.
… PETITIONER … RESPONDENTS (By Mr. MALLIKARJUN G. BASAREDDY, ADV. FOR R1 Mr. YATHEESH CHANDRA Y.S. ADV., FOR R2 (ABSENT)) - - -
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the letter of intent issued by the R-1 dated 29-3-2016 vide Annex-V. direct the R-1 to issue the letter of intent to the petitioner since he has already fulfilled all conditions of the guidelines and produced the documents to the location of Bidadi, Ramanagara Taluk and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.B.Prabhudeva, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.Mallikarjun G.Basareddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia seeks a writ of certiorari for quashment of letter of intent issued by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.2 for setting up a retail outlet.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in pursuance of the advertisement, the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 submitted an application for opening of a retail outlet. However, the petitioner and the respondent No.2 were found to be eligible for opening the retail outlet and respondent No.2 was selected by lottery and a letter of intent was issued in his favour. Later on, the petitioner learnt that the land which has been offered by respondent No.2 for opening of a retail outlet is not at the advertised location.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to the documents issued by the revenue authorities in support of his aforesaid submissions.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has submitted that the aforesaid question is a question of fact which cannot be gone into in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner has the remedy of approaching the Grievance Redressal Committee.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
8. The question whether or not the site which was offered by the respondent No.2 for setting up a retail outlet was at the advertised location is a question of fact which cannot be determined in a summary proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially in view of the rival claims of the parties. The respondents have asserted that the officers of the respondent No.1 Company have carried out the verification and have found that the land offered by the respondent No.2 is on the advertised location whereas the petitioner is relying on the report submitted by the revenue officers. The aforesaid disputed question of fact cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to submit an application to the Grievance Redressal Committee of the respondent No.1. It is needless to state that in case the petitioner files an application before the said Committee of the respondent No.1 within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today, the aforesaid Committee shall decide the application submitted by the petitioner by a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondent No.2. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RV