Karnataka High Court
Nagbhushan Kamathane Kamthana Village vs State Of Karnataka on 15 November, 2022
Author: R. Devdas
Bench: R. Devdas
-1-
W.P.NO.206121 OF 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.206121 OF 2014 (GM, RES)
BETWEEN
NAGBHUSHAN KAMATHANE
AGE ABOUT 37 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS
KAMTHANA VILLAGE
TALUK & DISTRICT BIDAR-585226.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DESHPANDE G.V., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPT. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560001
2. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.,
REP. BY ITS TERRITORY MANAGER,
RAJIV GANDHI LPG VITARAK (RGGLV)
P.B NO.39, ROAD NO.3,323, TO 333,
BELUR INDUSTRIAL AREA, DHWARAD,
DHARWAD-580011
3. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.,
REP. BY ITS REGIONAL LPG MANAGER SOUTH,
RANGANATHAN GARDENS,
OFF. 11TH MAIN ROAD,
ANNA NAGAR, CHEENAI-600040
-2-
W.P.NO.206121 OF 2014
4. IMARAN PASHA S/O AFSAR PASHA
KAMTHANA VILLAGE
TALUK & DISTRICT BIDAR-585226.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VIRANAGOUDA M BIRADAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI.CHAITANYA KUMAR C, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R3- SERVED
SRI. RAVI B PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25.08.2014 AT
ANNEXURE-K PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IN FILE
No. SR.LPG.RGGLV (KAMTHANA) CONFIRMING ORDER OF
RESPONDENT No.2 DATED 10.06.2014 WHICH IS PRODUCED
AT ANNEXURE J AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
This writ petition was filed on 11.11.2014, calling in question the allotment of distributorship of LPG in favour of the fourth respondent. It is the contention of the petitioner that after the allotment was made in favour the fourth respondent, the petitioner made a complaint dated 11.12.2013 at Annexure-E to the concerned officer of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation -3- W.P.NO.206121 OF 2014 Ltd., Dharwad, contending that the documents of title in respect of the land in question submitted by the fourth respondent is not a registered instrument and that the fourth respondent had no title over the land.
2. Learned Counsel for the fourth respondent submits that the land in question was standing in the name of the fourth respondent's brother and having verified the land records, the respondent-Corporation was satisfied and the distributorship was allotted in favour of the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent has been doing business consequent to the allotment of the distributorship from the year 2013 and till date there has been no complaint against the fourth respondent. Learned Counsel would therefore submit that the petitioner could not have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is a power of discretion vested in this Court and the -4- W.P.NO.206121 OF 2014 same cannot be exercised in the facts and circumstances of the case and the prayer made in the writ petition cannot be granted.
3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the respondents and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that the grievance of the petitioner is regarding the genuinity of the documents of title submitted at the hands of the fourth respondent. When admittedly, no dispute is raised at the hands of any other persons in respect of land in question, where the fourth respondent is doing business from the past nine years, the allotment of distributorship in favour of the fourth respondent on the flimsy ground that the fourth respondent is not the owner of the land in question, cannot be annulled and the relief sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted. If the respondent-Corporation is satisfied with the documents submitted and on verification of -5- W.P.NO.206121 OF 2014 the title to the property, since the distributorship was allotted in favour of the fourth respondent way back in the year 2013 and the fourth respondent has been doing business from the year 2013, the allotment of distributorship cannot be cancelled at the instance of the petitioner.
4. For the reasons stated above, this Court is satisfied that there is no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
5. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE DL