Smt Nirupama K C Vs the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Smt Nirupama K C Vs the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay in filing the appeal condoned (I.A.1/2025 allowed per para 1); the appeal was dismissed as unmerited and the pending application stood disposed of (para 14).

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant satisfies the eligibility conditions in the Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributorship governing the one-time opportunity to offer alternate land, namely that the alternate land must be owned by the applicant or a member of her 'Family Unit' and must have been owned as on the last date of submission of the application. +1 more

Court's answer

Under the Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributorship, where the land originally offered for godown and/or showroom fails the eligibility conditions at the verification (FVC) stage, the selected candidate receives a one-time option to offer alternate land within fifteen days, subject to two attendant conditions: the alternate land must be owned by the applicant or a member of the 'Family Unit', and it must be owned as on the last date of submission of the application specified in the advertisement or corrigendum, if any.

Ratio / Principle

The alternate lands offered by the appellant were neither owned by the appellant nor by any of her family members; her interest therein arose only under a lease.

Key takeaways

Because the lease conferring the appellant's leasehold interest in the alternate land was executed on 21.11.2023 (after she was successful in the draw of lots), on the last date of making the application the appellant had no interest in the alternate land offered by her.ratio¶9
In the aforesaid circumstances, it is apparent that the appellant does not satisfy the conditions as set out in the guidelines.ratio¶10
The appellant raised no challenge to the aforementioned eligibility conditions as set out in the guidelines.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (WA No. 1771 of 2025, GM-RES; NC: 2025:KHC:48253-DB) filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act by Smt. Nirupama K.C. against the learned Single Judge's order dated 31.07.2025 in WP No.12552/2024, which upheld HPCL's rejection (communication dated 20.02.2024) of her application for LPG distributorship at Doddasagere, Tumkuru under Open 'W' Category. Although successful in the draw of lots of 15.11.2023 (letter dated 17.11.2023) and called upon to deposit Rs.40,000/- as security deposit, her originally offered showroom land was found unsuitable per the guidelines. Relying on the guidelines' one-time opportunity to offer alternate land within fifteen days, she proffered land held under a lease deed dated 21.11.2023 — executed after the draw of lots. The Division Bench (oral judgment per Hon'ble Vibhu Bakhru, Chief Justice, with Hon'ble C.M. Poonacha) held that the Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributorship require the alternate land to be owned by the applicant or a member of her 'Family Unit' and to have been owned as on the last date of submission of the application; the appellant met neither condition, and raised no challenge to those conditions. Finding no infirmity in the Single Judge's decision concurring with HPCL, the appeal was dismissed and pending applications disposed of; delay in filing was condoned.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48253-DB WA No. 1771 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 1771 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SMT. NIRUPAMA K.C. W/O OF HEMANTH N AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT YALERMPURA, KOLALA HOBLI KORTAGERE TALUK TUMKUR - 572 129

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI MANMOHAN P.N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI VINAY N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by SRIDEVI S Location: High Court of Karnataka

THE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE NO.17, JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD MUMBAI - 400 020

THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER L.P.G REGIONAL OFFICE 3 AND 4, WHITEFIELD ROAD MAHADEVAPURA POST BENGALURU - 560 048

…RESPONDENTS

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48253-DB WA No. 1771 of 2025

HC-KAR

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 31/07/2025 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.12552/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION NO.12552/2024 FILED BY APPELLANT AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

For the reasons stated in the application - I.A.1/2025, the same is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

The appellant has filed a present appeal impugning an order dated 31.07.2025 passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court in WP. No.12552/2024 (GM-RES) [ impugned order ].

The appellant had filed the said writ petition impugning the communication dated 20.02.2024 issued by respondent No.2

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:48253-DB WA No. 1771 of 2025

HC-KAR

rejecting the petitioner's application for LPG distribution agency. The learned Single Judge found no fault in the decision of respondents to reject the application on the ground that the petitioner was ineligible in terms of the Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributorship [hereafter ' guidelines '] for awarding the LPG distributorship.

The relevant facts are that on 20.05.2023, the respondents (hereafter collectively referred to as HPCL ), invited applications for award of LPG distributorship at Doddasagere, Tumkuru under Open 'W' Category. The appellant submitted an online application pursuant to the said notice. The appellant's application was accepted and by a letter dated 17.11.2023, HPCL informed the appellant that she was successful in the draw of lots conducted on 15.11.2023, for the award of the LPG dealership (Grameen) and distributorship of HPCL, Doddasagere, Tumkuru. The appellant was also called upon to deposit a sum of Rs.40,000/- as security deposit and furnish the documents as required.

On examination of the documents, it was found that the land offered by the appellant for running a showroom was not suitable in terms of the guidelines. It is the appellant's case that in terms of the

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:48253-DB WA No. 1771 of 2025

HC-KAR

guidelines, she is entitled to a onetime opportunity to furnish alternate lands, if the land as offered was found to be not suitable. It is also the case of the appellant that at the time of document verification, she has submitted details of the alternate land for running a godown and a showroom. The appellant also claims that the land as furnished, met all the required conditions as specified in the brochure for selection of LPG distributorship.

However, the petitioner's application was rejected on the ground that the alternate land as offered by the appellant was held by her by way of lease deed dated 21.11.2023 and was not a property owned by her or her family. It was found that the lease deed dated 21.11.2023, was after the appellant was successful in the draw of lots.

The relevant eligibility conditions included in the guidelines for award of LPG distributorship – as also set out in paragraph 3 of the impugned order – is reproduced below:

" Opportunity to offer alternate land for Godown and/ or showroom

In case if the offered land for Godown and/ or offered land for showroom by the selected candidate which is shown in the application is found not meeting the

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48253-DB WA No. 1771 of 2025

HC-KAR

eligibility conditions/ requirements as stipulated in the advertisement/ brochure/ application at the verification (FVC) stage, then one time option of offering the alternate land will be available to all the selected candidate, by providing 15 days' time period, and in case any alternate land is offered by selected candidate, the same is to be owned by the applicant/member of the 'Family Unit'/ parents (includes Step Father/Step Mother), grandparents (both maternal and paternal), Brother/ Sister (including Step Brother & Step Sister), Son/Daughter (including Step Son/Step Daughter), Sonin-law/ Daughter in-law; of the applicant or the spouse(in the case of married applicant) as on the last date for submission of application as specified either in the advertisement or corrigendum if any. The selected candidate will be required to provide a declaration along with the offer of the alternate land confirming that the land now being offered by the selected candidate has not been offered by any other applicant in the same advertisement for that particular location.

In case, the selected candidate does not offer any alternate land meeting the eligibility conditions/requirements as per above, then another opportunity of 15 days will be provided. If still the candidate does not offer any alternate land, then the candidature will be rejected. "

A plain reading of the afore-quoted eligibility conditions

indicate that in the event the land offered for godown and/or showroom is found to be not in compliance with the eligibility conditions/legal requirements as stipulated in the advertisement or brochure inviting applications, the selected candidate would be provided with an one time option to offer an alternate land within a

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:48253-DB WA No. 1771 of 2025

HC-KAR

period of fifteen days. However, there are certain attendant conditions in respect to the alternate lands. First, that the land is required to be owned by the applicant/member of the 'Family Unit'. And second, that the land should be owned as on the last date of submission of the application as specified either in the advertisement or corrigendum, if any.

In the present case, there is no dispute that the alternate land as offered by the appellant are neither owned by the appellant nor by any of her family members. Second, that the lease by virtue of which the appellant claims leasehold interest in the alternate land was executed on 21.11.2023. Thus, on the last date of making an application, the appellant had no interest in the alternate land offered by her.

In the aforesaid circumstances, it is apparent that the appellant does not satisfy the conditions as set out in the guidelines as noted above.

We also note that the appellant has not raised any challenge to the aforementioned eligibility conditions as set out in the guidelines.

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48253-DB WA No. 1771 of 2025

HC-KAR

In view of the above, we find no infirmity with the decision of the learned Single Judge concurring with the view of HPCL that the

petitioner did not satisfy the eligibility criteria.

The appeal is unmerited and accordingly dismissed.

Pending application also stands disposed of.

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

SD

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 17

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 31.07.2025 of the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP No.12552/2024 (GM-RES), whereby the Single Judge found no fault in HPCL's rejection of the appellant's application for LPG distribution agency on the ground of ineligibility under the guidelines.¶2
High Court of Karnataka (Learned Single Judge) · 31.07.2025
Prior proceeding
Appellant filed WP No.12552/2024 (GM-RES) before the learned Single Judge impugning the communication dated 20.02.2024 issued by respondent No.2 rejecting her application for LPG distribution agency.¶3
Prior proceeding
Learned Single Judge found no fault in the respondents' decision to reject the application on the ground that the petitioner was ineligible in terms of the Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributorship.¶3
Prior proceeding
On 20.05.2023 the respondents (collectively, HPCL) invited applications for award of LPG distributorship at Doddasagere, Tumkuru under Open 'W' Category; the appellant submitted an online application pursuant to the notice, which was accepted.¶4
Prior proceeding
By letter dated 17.11.2023, HPCL informed the appellant she was successful in the draw of lots conducted on 15.11.2023 for the award of the LPG dealership (Grameen) and distributorship of HPCL, Doddasagere, Tumkuru; she was called upon to deposit Rs.40,000/- as security deposit and furnish the required documents.¶4
Prior proceeding
On examination of the documents, the land offered by the appellant for running a showroom was found not suitable in terms of the guidelines.¶5
Prior proceeding
Appellant's case: she was entitled to a onetime opportunity to furnish alternate lands; at document verification she submitted details of alternate land for a godown and a showroom, claiming the furnished land met all required conditions in the brochure.¶5
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's application was rejected because the alternate land offered was held by the appellant under a lease deed dated 21.11.2023 (executed after she was successful in the draw of lots) and was not a property owned by her or her family.¶6