IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.54367 OF 2014 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI. SUNIL KUMAR G, S/O SRI GOPAL NAIK, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.670/6, 9TH CROSS,BHAGATH SINGH NAGAR, NEW BUS STAND MAIN ROAD, DAVANAGERE -577 009.
(BY SRI ANANDA, ADV.) AND:
1. M/S HINDUSTHAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED(HPCL), REG OFFICER AT NO.17, JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD, MUMBAI-400 020.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, 2. THE SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, HUBLI LPG REGIONAL OFFICE, P.B. NO.24,FLAT NO.165/166, KIADB,INDUSTRIAL AREA, BELUR,DHARWAD-580 011.
… PETITIONER … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MALLIKARJUN.C.BASAREDDY, ADV. FOR R1 AND 2) - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN DTD 29.10.2014 BY R-2 REJECTING THE CLAIM OF LPG DISTRIBUTORSHIP AT DCM LAYOUT, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT UNDER SCHEDULE CASTE CATEGORY WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNX-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.Ananda, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.Mallikarjun.C.Barareddy, learned counsel for the respondent.Nos.1 and 2.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia seeks quashment of the order dated 29.10.2014 passed by respondent No.2, by which claim of the petitioner for LPG distributorship under the Scheduled Caste category has been rejected. The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus to award the LPG distributorship to him.
4. Facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that an advertisement was issued on 21.09.2013 for appointment of distributorship under various locations including Davanagere, DCM layout, Davanagere under the Scheduled Caste category. The petitioner submitted an application in response to the aforesaid advertisement. The terms and conditions of the advertisement, the committee was required to make under the law or having a registered loan agreement for a minimum of 15 years in the name of the applicant or his family members on the last date of submission of the application as specified in the advertisement. The application submitted by the petitioner was verified by Field Verification Committee and it was found that the land stated at his application is not correct and does not meet requirements as per guidelines. It was found by the Field Verification Committee that the lease deed in respect of the land in favour of the petitioner was registered on 14.2.2014 i.e., after the last date of submission of the application i.e., 15.11.2013 as per clause 6 of guidelines, the petitioner was required to own the land for having a registered lease agreement for a minimum of 15 years in the name of the petitioner or members of the family on the last date of submission of the application i.e., on 15.11.2013. The petitioner entered into a registered lease agreement on 14.02.0213 and therefore, his candidature was rejected. Thus, the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected or want of cogent reasons.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance on a Division bench decision of Calcutta High Court in ‘SWAPNIL SINGH vs. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION’, in A.S.T.No.158/2013 has submitted that the petitioner has substantially satisfied the requisite conditions in the guidelines of LPG distributorship. Therefore, he ought to have selected. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the action taken by the verification committee.
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly clause 6 of the advertisement required a candidate should own a plot of land or have a registered lease agreement for a minimum period of 15 yeas as on the last date of submission of the application as specified in the advertisement. Petitioner admittedly did not have the requisite qualification on the last date of submission of the application i.e., 15.11.2013 but had entered into a lease agreement subsequently i.e., on 14.02.2014. Thus, the petitioner was ineligible in view of the terms and conditions of the advertisement. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ‘SWAPNIL SINGH, supra has no application in the fact situation of the case as the aforesaid decision deals with the substantial conditions of the terms an conditions laid down in the advertisement, whereas, in the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner did not fulfill the condition with regard to the site in question. Therefore, no fault can be found with the action of the respondents in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for grant of dealership. In view of the preceding analysis, I find no merit in this petition. The same fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE SS