Karnataka High Court
Sri A Lakshmipathi vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd on 3 July, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:22883
WP No. 60443 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO.60443 OF 2016 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI M. LAKSHMIPATHI
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
S/O. LATE MARAPPA,
CHAKAHALLI, BYRAMANGALA POST,
BIDADI HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA - 562 109. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI C.M. NAGABUSHANA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,
INDIAN OIL BHAVAN,
NO.29, P. KALINGARAO ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 027.
REP. BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,
(LPG) MARKETING DIVISION.
Digitally signed
by SHYAMALA 2. SMT. S. SUSHMA
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
COURT OF W/O. SRI M. SANTHOSH KUMAR,
KARNATAKA R/AT NO.31, 5TH CROSS,
2ND MAIN, SUBRAMANYA LAYOUT,
VIJANAPURA,
BANGALORE - 560 016. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRASHANTH KUMAR S.T., ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SRI K. SUCHINDRA KARANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
NOTIFICATION AT ANNEXURE-A, IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO 1ST
RESPONDENT AT SL.NO.78 NOTIFYING FOR APPOINTMENT OF
DISTRIBUTOR TO HAROHALLI OF BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BY
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:22883
WP No. 60443 of 2016
THE 1ST RESPONDENT; IN THE ALTERNATIVE, QUASH THE
APPOINTMENT OF 2ND RESPONDENT AS DISTRIBUTOR TO
HAROHALLI, IN PURSUANT TO ISSUE OF ANNEXURE-A, VIDE LETTER
DATED 27.03.2015 AT ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The unsuccessful distributor of LPG is before this Court seeking to quash the notification at Annexure-A insofar as it relates to respondent No.1 at Sl. No.78 notifying for appointment of Distributor to Harohalli of Bangalore Rural District and seeking to quash the appointment of respondent No.2 as distributor to Harohalli pursuant to Annexure-A and also seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.1 to redo the entire process of appointment of distributor of LPG to Harohalli of Ramanagara District by issuing a fresh notification.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, the notification was issued by respondent No.1 for appointment of distributorship of LPG Harohalli Village, Bangalore Rural and that respondent No.1 issued appointment to respondent No.2 as distributor to Harohalli, Kanakapura -3- NC: 2023:KHC:22883 WP No. 60443 of 2016 Taluk, Ramanagara District in SC category under the Marketing Plan 2012-2013, contrary to the notification called for distribution of LPG to Harohalli of Bangalore Rural District. It is the case of the petitioner that the notification was issued for distribution of LPG to Bangalore Harohalli in SC category Bangalore Rural, whereas, the appointment of respondent No.2 as distributor of LPG is to Harohalli of Ramanagara District and there being no notification for appointment of distributor to Harohalli of Ramanagara District, the appointment of respondent No.2 is void, illegal and unsustainable and the entire process of respondent No.1 from issuance of notification for appointment of distributor of LPG is contrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
3. Respondent No.1-the Corporation filed its statement of objections inter alia contending that the petitioner has no locus-standi to file the petition and the petitioner is not an applicant for allotment of LPG distributorship and in the absence of the same, the -4- NC: 2023:KHC:22883 WP No. 60443 of 2016 petitioner has no right to challenge the allotment of LPG distributorship to respondent No.2. It is stated that the LPG distributorship was for the location of Bangalore Harohalli under Bangalore Rural District, SC category and respondent No.2 being a successful candidate for location of Harohalli, the letter of appointment was issued in the name of respondent No.2 in the name and style of "Venkatadri Indian Gas Agency". It is further stated that the petitioner has not filed any application for grant of LPG location of Harohalli Bangalore Rural District neither any applicant nor candidate was rejected on basis of land offered in wrong location. It is further stated that no applicant had any conflict regarding identifying the location as per Annexure-A and Harohalli falls under Ramanagara District but. formerly it was under Bangalore Rural District.
4. Respondent No.2, the letter of intent in whose favour the distributorship was issued has filed statement of objections inter alia contending that the petitioner is -5- NC: 2023:KHC:22883 WP No. 60443 of 2016 neither the resident of Ramanagara nor the resident of Bidadi Hobli and the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the letter of intent issued in favour of this respondent. It is further contended that the petition has to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and pursuant to the letter of intent, the business was commenced on 01.04.2015 and the petitioner has filed this petition after lapse of 19 months and the petition has to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
5. Heard Sri. C.M. Nagabushana, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Prashanth Kumar S.T., learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri. K. Sachindra Karanth, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the entire process of issuance of notification calling for allotment of dealership for gas distribution agency was for Harohalli, Bangalore Rural, Bangalore, whereas, the letter of intent issued to respondent No.2 -6- NC: 2023:KHC:22883 WP No. 60443 of 2016 was for Harohalli Town, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District and the allotment of dealership to respondent No.2 is without there being any application having been called for by respondent No.1 for allotment of dealership of gas distribution agency at Ramanagara District and as such, the order of allotment needs to be set-aside and fresh process of appointment of distributor of LPG to Harohalli of Ramanagara District has to be called for by issuing fresh notification.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent in addition to reiterating the various other contentions raised in their statement of objections would contend that in total 37 applicants for the location of Bangalore- Harohalli at Sl. No.78 and there was no conflict regarding the identifying the location advertised by respondent No.1 for the reason that Harohalli falls under Ramanagara District but was formerly under Bangalore Rural and no application was rejected on the basis of the land offered is in wrong location. The petitioner has no locus standi to file -7- NC: 2023:KHC:22883 WP No. 60443 of 2016 the present writ petition as he is neither the applicant nor the candidate for having sought for grant of LPG distribution for the location as stated in the notification and does not fulfill any of the criteria as stated in the notification.
8. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
9. The grant of LPG distributorship for the location Bangalore-Harohalli under Bangalore Rural District, SC Category for Marketing plan 2012-2013 was advertised by notification on 05.09.2012 and respondent No.2 being a successful candidate was issued with the letter of appointment for the location of Harohalli and the distributorship was commissioned in the name and style Sri Venkatadri Indian Gas Agency. The petitioner is neither an applicant nor has submitted any application to respondent No.1 for grant of LPG distributorship for -8- NC: 2023:KHC:22883 WP No. 60443 of 2016 location of Harohalli. Neither the advertisement has created any conflict in identifying the advertised location nor any candidate nor was an applicant rejected on the basis of the land offered in wrong location. The selection of distributorship is a transparent procedure and the candidate is required to meet the basic eligibility criteria and amongst the eligible candidates the draw of lots would be conducted and on field verification of credentials of selected candidates will be undertaken and verified whether the selected candidates is confirming the eligibility conditions as given in the application and on fulfillment of requirement as specified in the guidelines and on successful completion of all the formalities like construction of godown or showrooms, obtaining statutory licence, obtaining statutory no-objection certificate, the appointment will be issued and finding respondent No.2 having satisfied with all the criteria, the letter of intent was issued.
-9-
NC: 2023:KHC:22883 WP No. 60443 of 2016
10. It is also relevant to note that no advertisement was issued by respondent No.1 with reference to the distributorship in Harohalli which is Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. The notification for the LPG distributorship for location of Vijayapura Hobli, Bangalore Rural District was issued in the same advertisement at Sl. No.77 and the notification clearly indicates that the distributorship sought is that of Harohalli Bangalore Rural District in Ramanagara and not the same as contended by the petitioner as Harohalli Bangalore Rural near Vijayapura Hobli. The entire case of the petitioner is to contend that advertisement was issued in respect of "Bangalore Harohalli, Bangalore Rural District", whereas respondent No.1 was appointed as the LPG distributor to "Harohalli, Ramanagar District" without calling for appointment of LPG distributorship to the said location. Material on record makes it evident that the notification by respondent No.1 is for Bangalore Rural at Sl. No.78 and Viajayapura Hobli, Bangalore Rural in the same advertisement at Sl. No.77. The petitioner having not been an applicant for the
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:22883 WP No. 60443 of 2016 dealership and nor having produced any details about the eligibility criteria in which the petitioner fits into had locus standi to file the present petition.
11. It is also relevant to state that respondent No.1 had issued a letter of intent and the business was commenced on 01.04.2015 and the petition has been filed on 24.11.2016 after the lapse of 19 months from the date of starting of the business and in the absence of any justification as to the same has not been questioned immediately after issuance of letter of intent, the petitioner has made out no case to exercise the writ remedy when the delay and laches has to be clearly attributed to the petitioner and the petitioner has no locus standi in assailing the letter of intent without there being any eligibility criteria.
12. The Apex court in the case of Virender Chaudhary Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation and
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:22883 WP No. 60443 of 2016 Others reported in (2009) 1 SCC 297 has held at paragraph Nos.20 and 21 as under:
"20. The fifth respondent did not acquire an indefeasible right. He was selected by the Oil Selection Board. The said selection was subsequently cancelled and a letter of intent was issued in favour of the appellant in May 2004. It was not questioned immediately after issuance of the letter of intent in favour of the appellant in May 2004. In his writ application, the fifth respondent did not question the grant of dealership in favour of the appellant. He was afforded an opportunity to amend the writ petition. He filed such an application only after 16 months. However, the writ petition itself was withdrawn and only in October 2006, the present writ application was filed. From the facts as noticed hereinbefore, there can, therefore, be no doubt that from May 2004 to October 2006, the respondent did not take any step to challenge insurance (sic issuance) of the letter of intent granting dealership in favour of the appellant.
21. Considering the fact that starting of a business in LPG dealership requires a huge investment and infrastructure therefor is required to be provided and a large number of employees are to be appointed therefor, we are of the opinion
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:22883 WP No. 60443 of 2016 that the High Court committed a serious error in not taking these factors into consideration in proper perspective. The impugned judgment, therefore, cannot be sustained and is set aside accordingly."
13. On the ground of locus standi, this Court in the case of H.S. Mahesha Vs. The State of Karnataka Rep., by its Secretary, Department of Internal Administration and Others reported in ILR 2009 KAR 2442 has held at paragraph No.16 as under:
"16. Annexure 'H' is the press note issued by the Deputy Commandant General Home-guards, Civil Defence, Karnataka, Bangalore, inviting applications for the Honorary District Commandant Home-guards Post in the Districts of Bangalore, Chickmagalore, Dakshina Kannada, Gulbarga, Ramanagara and Tumkur. Deputy Commandant General Home Guards and Director, Civil Defence, is one of the members of the Committee constituted for the purpose of appointment of the District Commandant. As stated above, Rule 3-B provides for the procedure for appointment of the District Commandant, Home Guards Incharge of the District. It states that the committee referred to in sub-Section (2-A) of Section 3 shall invite applications from the eligible candidates for
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:22883 WP No. 60443 of 2016 appointment as Commandants of the District through the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned Districts. In other words, the committee has to invite applications and not the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned District. The press note at Annexure 'H' states that bio-data with the attested copy of the testimonials with reference to the date of birth, educational qualification, address, phone numbers, along with two reference from respectable persons of the locality and Head of Office (if employed) should be submitted to the concerned Deputy Commissioner. It further states that the interested persons shall submit their applications to the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned Districts on or before 28.7.2008. Therefore, the applications for appointment as Commandant of the District have been invited through the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned District. One of the Committee members, namely, the Deputy Commandant General has issued the Notification. It is true that under Rule 3-B, the Selection Committee should have invited application from the eligible candidates for appointment as District Commandant. It is not the case of the petitioner that because the press note was issued by the Deputy Commandant General, he has lost the opportunity to make application within the prescribed period. Therefore, no prejudice
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:22883 WP No. 60443 of 2016 whatsoever has been caused to the petitioner on account of the Deputy Commandant issuing the Notification. As a matter of fact, he is not an applicant to the post in question pursuant to the said Notification. The Apex Court in SARDARA SINGH & OTHERS vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS - has held that though the procedure adopted by the Collector in inviting application is not commendable, but the grievance would be voiced only by the persons who did not have the opportunity to make applications within the prescribed period. But no such grievance could be raised by persons like the appellants. It is held that the procedure adopted, though irregular, does not vitiate the selection of candidates, ultimately made by the Committee. It is held as under:
"It was next contended that instead of calling the applications by publication in the newspapers, only notice was put on the Notice Board of the Collector's office and some candidates submitted their applications in pursuance thereof and that is not a proper Notification. Though we find that the procedure adopted by the Collector, in inviting applications is not commendable, but the grievance would be voiced only by the persons who did not have the opportunity to make applications
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC:22883 WP No. 60443 of 2016 within the prescribed period. But no such grievance could be raised by persons like the appellants. Under those circumstances, the procedure adopted, though irregular, does not vitiate the selection of candidates, ultimately made by the Committee."
Therefore, I am of the view that merely because some error has crept in while issuing the Notification, that by itself will not vitiate the selection of the third respondent as the District Commandant."
14. It is evident to note that the petitioner is neither the resident of Ramanagara nor an applicant seeking for dealership to contend that the notification was not issued in the location of Ramanagara. The entire process of appointment and issuance of letter of intent is as per the selection guidelines issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and there being complete transparency in the appointment of the distributor and the petitioner cannot contend that there is violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and there has no
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC:22883 WP No. 60443 of 2016 infringement of right of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the selection of LPG distributorship by respondent No.1. Accordingly, the petition needs to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
15. For the foregoing reason, this Court pass the following:
ORDER The writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.
Sd/-
JUDGE S