Allowed

Sri. Prajwal S v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited

Karnataka HC5 Apr 2013WP/51438/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought directions to the second respondent to reconsider a dealership selection complaint. The High Court ordered the respondent to consider the complaint and pass an order within eight weeks, dismissing the connected I.A.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent No.2 to consider the complaint under Annexure-H and pass an order within eight weeks from receipt of the order copy.

Sri. Prajwal S Vs Hindustan Petroleum… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.ABDUL NAZEER

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.51438/2012 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Sri.Prajwal. S. S/o S.Seeganayaka, Aged about 24 years, R/a Palya Village & Post, Palya Hobli, Kollegal Taluk, Chamarajanagar District.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(By Sri.Ravishankar.S, Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, (A Government of India Enterprise). Having its registered office at No.17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai – 400 020.

¶13

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Bangalore LPG Regional Office, No.3 & 4, Whitefield Road, Mahadevapura Post, Bangalore – 560 048, Rep by its Regional Manager.

¶14

The Chief Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Bangalore LPG Regional Office,

¶15

¶16

No.3 & 4, Whitefield Road, Mahadevapura Post, Bangalore – 560 048.

¶17

Sri.S.Mohan S/o Siddaraju.K, Major, Resident of Palya Village, Palya Hobli, Kollegal Taluk, Chamarajanagar District – 571 440.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(By Sri.B.K.Sridhar, Advocate for R1 to R3) (R4 - served)

¶20

This Writ Petition is filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus to the R2 to consider the complaint through a legal notice dt.5.11.12 at Ann-H in accordance with law at the earliest by allowing this WP and etc.

¶21

This Writ Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made by following:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Though this matter is listed for orders, by consent of the

¶24

learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for hearing, hearing and disposed of by this order.

¶25

In this case, the petitioner has sought for a direction to

¶26

the 2^nd respondent to consider the complaint filed by him, sent through his learned Advocate at Annexure 'H' dated 05.11.2012 at an early date.

¶27

¶28

The contention of the petitioner is that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the 2^nd respondent, he has made an application for award of the dealership as per Annexure-B on 23.04.2012. After scrutiny of the documents, 3^rd respondent announced the list of the applicants qualified for selection of RGGLV in the website of the 3^rd respondent as per Annexure-C on 22.05.2012. On 16.08.2012, the 3^rd respondent sent a letter to the petitioner intimating him to participate in the draw, which was to be held at the second respondent's office on 05.09.2012 as per Annexure-D. In the draw process held on 05.09.2012, it was declared that the 4^th respondent was selected which was published in the website of the 2^nd respondent as per Annexure-E.

¶29

The contention of the petitioner is that the 4^th respondent is not legally entitled for grant of the dealership. He has raised several other grounds in support of his contentions. He got issued a legal notice dated 07.11.2012 to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to cancel the selection of the 4^th respondent.

¶30

Having considered the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that respondent No.2 has to

¶31

¶32

consider the complaint filed by the petitioner as per Annexure-H and pass an appropriate order thereon in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶33

In view of the disposal of the writ petition as above, I.A.No.I/2013 does not survive for consideration. It is accordingly

¶34

dismissed. No costs.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

Prs*

Sri. Prajwal S v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Prajwal S v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S N N Ispat Vs the Punjab National Bank

Sri S R Ganesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr M Sivaraj Vs State Bank of India

Nine Star Friends Association Vs the Commissioner of Police

Sri K B Dadapeer Vs the Deputy Director

Sri P Mukundan Vs Smt Radhika Vasudevan