Dismissed

Sri D G Kumar v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Karnataka HC8 Sept 2021WP/51939/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the dismissal of a petitioner's earlier application for a retail outlet dealership. The selection process had been cancelled because the designated location fell on a National Highway rather than a State Highway as initially advertised. The High Court examined whether this cancellation violated the petitioner's rights.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no costs.

Sri D G Kumar Vs Hindustan Petroleum… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

W.P No.51939/2019

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.51939 OF 2019 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

SRI. D.G. KUMAR S/O SRI. GURUSIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS BUSINESS R/AT ADLEGERE VILLAGE MELEGERE POST BELUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 115 ... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SHRI. H.V. MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD (GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING) REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.17 JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD MUMBAI-400 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶13

THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER-R HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, MANGALORE RETAIL REGIONAL OFFICE, 1^ST FLOOR DEO GRATIAS BUILDING CHILIMBI, URVA STORES MANGALORE-575 006 ... RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SHRI. B. PRAMOD, ADVOCATE)

¶15

[THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE]

¶16

W.P No.51939/2019

¶17

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.09.2019 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-R BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.,

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 25.08.2021, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation called for

¶22

applications for allotment of retail outlet dealership by advertisement dated 10.10.2014. Petitioner submitted his application. His selection in draw of lots was communicated as per Annexure-H dated 10.08.2017. The Oil Corporation cancelled the selection process on the premise that the location 'Kengenahalli' was construed to be one on the State Highway, whereas the National Highway Authority of India¹ had notified it as National Highway vide notification dated 04.03.2014. In order to give wide publication, the selection process was cancelled.

1 'NHAI' for short

W.P No.51939/2019

Petitioner approached this court in W.P.No.39488/2018. This court set-aside the

¶27

communication cancelling the location and directed the oil corporation to give an opportunity of hearing for the petitioner and pass a speaking order. Accordingly, petitioner was heard on 26.08.2019 and a detailed order has been passed as per Annexure-R dated 06.09.2019. Petitioner is aggrieved by the same and hence, this writ petition.

¶28

Shri H.V. Manjunatha learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that respondent is an oil corporation owned by the Government of India. After following all formalities, petitioner has been declared as a selected candidate. Petitioner has invested huge money in procuring the land. Therefore, the cancellation of selection process is bad in law.

¶29

Shri Pramod, for the Oil Corporation submitted

¶30

that the advertisement was issued on the assumption that

¶31

W.P No.51939/2019

¶32

¶33

the location was on the State Highway. Once, the Oil Corporation learnt about the notification issued by the NHAI, in order to provide opportunity to all concerned and to set right the records, the selection process has been cancelled. He submitted that no right has accrued to the petitioner by mere selection in draw of lots. With regard to the purchase of land by the petitioner, he submitted that every applicant is required to either own or have the land required for setting up the retail outlet at the time of submitting the application. Therefore, the ground urged in this behalf is untenable.

¶34

Undisputed facts of the case are, Oil

¶35

Corporation, upon learning that, the location indeed falls on the National Highway, have cancelled the selection process.

¶36

Shri Pramod for Oil Corporation is right in his submission that it has been clearly stated that the company reserves the right to cancel/withdraw or amend

¶37

W.P No.51939/2019

¶38

¶39

the advertisement or extend the date at its sole discretion without assigning any reason. He is also right in his submission that an applicant is required to either own or have the land under his control at the time of submitting the application. After the draw of lots, there are several formalities which need to be completed. Mere selection in draw of lots does not create an enforceable right nor the Oil Corporation is estopped from cancelling the selection process without any reason.

¶40

In view of the above, no exception can be taken to the communication dated 06.09.2019 as per Annexure-R. Resultantly, this writ petition fails and it is

¶41

accordingly dismissed .

¶42

No costs.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

Sri D G Kumar v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri D G Kumar v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

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

Sri J B Surana Vs the District Registrar of Societies

Sri H M Farooq Vs Sri H.G. Kama Reddy

R Rajkumar Vs Smt Girija Rajgopal

M/S Bls International Services Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Hiremath Hospitals Private Limited Vs Healthcare Global Enterprises Limited

M/S Apple Spire India LLP Vs Canara Bank