IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD W.P.Nos.21354-21355 OF 2014(GM-RES) BETWEEN:
Sri. Suresh V S/o Venkataiah Aged about 48 years Residing at No.121 Kirangoor Village Baburayankoppalu Srirangapatnam, Mandya-571807. … Petitioner (By Sri. Srikanth B., Advocate) AND:
Indian Oil Corporation Limited Marketing Division Indane Area Office IV Floor, Unity Building JCW Road, Bangalore-560 002, Represented by its Chief Area Manager. ... Respondent (By Sri.Dhananjay Joshi, Advocate for Sri.Sharath Mulia, Advocate) These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the letter dated:04.04.2014 rejecting the candidature of the petitioner is concerned (Annexure-K) and etc.
These writ petitions, coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER These writ petitions are directed against the order dated 04.04.2014 passed by the respondent vide Annexure-K, whereby the petitioner’s application is rejected.
2. The respondent herein had given a paper publication in Vijaya Karnataka Daily newspaper on 30.03.2012, inviting applications for LPG Distributorship under Rajiv Gandhi Gramina LPG Vitrak (RGGLV). Pursuant to the notification, petitioner has applied for the same and he has also furnished all relevant documents. But, at the time of field verification the respondent has found that the land offered by the petitioner has a registered lease deed for 15 years, the same is not acceptable and the alternative land shown by the petitioner is not suitable for required minimum dimension for construction of LPG godown. Accordingly, the application of the petitioner was rejected as per Annexure-K. Being aggrieved by the same petitioner is before this Court.
3. Sri Srikanth B., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per Annexure-C guidelines for selection of regular LPG Distributors (August 2013) the word ‘own’ is defined as follows:
“Own” means having ownership title of the property or registered lease agreement for minimum 15 years in the name of applicant/family member as defined in multiple distributorship norm of eligibility criteria as on the last date for submission of application as specified in the advertisement or corrigendum (if any). In case of ownership/co- ownership by family member(s) as given above, consent in the form of Notarized Affidavit from the family member(s) will be required.”
4. In view of the above, the petitioner has produced the lease deed executed in favour of the petitioner for a period of 15 years. But without considering the same impugned order is passed.
5. The learned counsel further submits that the respondent, without the authority of law, has forfeited Rs.20,000/- deposited by the petitioner at the time of filing the application. Hence he sought for allowing the writ petition.
6. Per contra, Sri Dhananjay Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent submits that as per the Manual issued for selection of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV), the word ‘owner’ is defined as follows:
“Own means having clear ownership title of the property in the name of applicant/family member(s) of the ‘Family Unit’ as defined in multiple dealership/distributorship norm or land belonging to parents & grandparents (both maternal and paternal) of the applicant as on the last date for submission of application as specified in the advertisement or corrigendum (if any). In case of ownership/co- ownership by family member(s) as given above, consent in the form of a Notarised Affidavit from the family member(s) will be required”
7. He submits that since the petitioner has not satisfied the conditions prescribed in the guidelines, the authority has rightly rejected his application.
8. The learned counsel further submits that as regards the forfeiture of the 10% of security deposit amount is concerned, as per Clause 14.2 of the manual issued for RGGLV Scheme, the amount has been forfeited.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
10. It is not in dispute that by notification dated 30.03.2012 respondent had invited applications for LPG distributorship under RGGLV Scheme. Annexure-C guidelines relied on by the petitioner is not applicable to RGGLV Scheme. It is only guidelines for selection of regular LPG Distributors. The guidelines applicable to the RGGLV Scheme is RGGLV guidelines. According to the guidelines for the RGGLV Scheme, either the applicant or family members have to own the property. In this case the petitioner has produced the lease-deed executed in his favour for a period of 15 years. Since the petitioner is not holding the property in his own name or in the name of his family members, the authority has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner.
11. As regards the forfeiture of the security deposit is concerned, para 14.2 of the manual for RGGLV Scheme is extracted hereinbelow:
“14.2. …….. If the variance affects the eligibility of the selected candidate, Head of State/Regional/Zonal Office will approve cancellation of the candidature of the selected candidate alongwith forfeiture of the 10% of the security deposit taken from the selected candidate before FVC. In such cases, Head of State/Regional/Zonal Office will also approve re- draw/re-advertisement as applicable and action should be taken by the Head of Area/Territory/Regional Office accordingly.”
12. In view of the above, respondent is right in forfeiting the security deposit. However, in the interest of justice, this Court is giving liberty to the petitioner to give a representation to the respondent. The respondent can consider the same sympathetically and pass appropriate orders within four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation.
With the above observations, this petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Cm/-