Sri. Siddaganga Indane Vs M/S Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:41840 WP No. 11829 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 11829 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. SIDDAGANGA INDANE GRAMIN VITARAK NEAR GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, KESTURU POST, KORA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT- 572 138 REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MR. SHAIK MAHABOOB PASHA, S/O MOHAMMED ZAVEED PASHA (PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN)

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

M/S BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD AMM, BENGALURU, DUPARK TRINITY, 7TH FLOOR, 17, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 001. REP BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER.

¶13

Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. KIRAN N J., ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED PUBLIC NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT CALLING FOR APPLICATIONS FOR APPOINTING LPG DISTRIBUTORS FOR SUPPLY OF LPG GAS CYLINDERS AT THOVINAKERE VILLAGE, KORATAGERE SUB-DIVISION, TUMKUR DISTRICT, UNDER THE CATEGORY OF DURGAM KSHETRIYA VITRAK (DKV) PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPER DT. 20.05.2023 IN PRAJAVANI KANNADA DAILY VIDE ANNX-A.

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:41840 WP No. 11829 of 2023

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Petitioner is assailing the Public Notice (Annexure-A) issued by the Respondent calling for applications for appointing LPG Distributors for supply of LPG Gas Cylinders at Thovinakere Village, Koratagere Sub-Division, Tumkur District under the category of Durgam Kshetriya Vitrak (DKV) published in the 'Prajavani' daily Newspaper dated 20.05.2023.

¶24

The relevant facts for the adjudication of this petition are that, the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. has appointed the petitioner as Rajiv Gandhi LPG Vitrak at Kesturu Taluk, Tumkuru District during the year 2012, as per Annexure-B to the Writ Petition. It is also stated that, the petitioner was initially appointed for a period of 5 years and the same was renewed from time to time, and as such an Agreement dated 23.04.2012 (Annexure-C) was entered into between the Petitioner and the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. It is also stated in the petition that, having considered the services rendered by

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:41840 WP No. 11829 of 2023

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

the petitioner, the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. has reclassified the LPG Distributorship of the Petitioner as 'Gramin Vitrak' by addressing a letter dated 08.09.2016 (Annexure-D). Pursuant to the appointment of the Petitioner as Gramin Vitrak in terms of the Agreement dated 23.04.2012, Addendum to the said Agreement was entered into between the Petitioner and the Indane (Liquefied Petroleum Gas) Distributorship (Domestic & Commercial) Agreement dated 23.09.2016 as per Annexure-E to the writ petition.

¶28

It is the case of the Petitioner that the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. having issued the letter dated 08.09.2016 at Annexure-D, however, has issued the Advertisement as per Annexure-A, calling for application for Distributorship at Thovinakere Village, Koratagere Sub-Division under the same category i.e., Durgam Kshetriya Vitrak. It is the case of the Petitioner that the distance between the Kesthur and Thovinakere is approximately about 5 kilometres to 5.5 kilometres and therefore, the Petitioner has presented this writ petition challenging the Public Notice at Annexure-A.

¶29

4 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:41840 WP No. 11829 of 2023

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

I have heard Sri.Rajashekar.S, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Sri.Kiran N.J, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent.

¶33

Sri Rajashekar.S, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, invited the attention of the Court to the Letter dated 08.09.2016 at Annexure-D, wherein the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., has pointed out about the area of operation for 15 kilometres from the limits of LPG Distributorship location and also directed the Petitioner to develop the requisite manpower and delivery infrastructure and despite the same, the impugned Public Notice has been issued as per Annexure-A and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.

¶34

It is also argued by Sri.Rajashekar.S, learned counsel for the Petitioner, by referring to Annexure-H with regard to the distance between Kestur and Thovinakere which is approximately 5.5 kilometres as per the Google Maps and also the guidelines issued for selection of LPG Distributorship (Annexure-J) submitted that, the impugned Advertisement is therefore, contrary to the aforesaid guidelines issued in respect

¶35

5 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:41840 WP No. 11829 of 2023

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

of Durgam Kshetriya Vitrak, produced at Annexure-J to the writ petition and accordingly, sought for interference by this Court.

¶39

Per contra, Sri Kiran N.J, learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the writ petition itself is not maintainable as the case of the Petitioner is based on Annexure-D which has been issued by the Indian Oil Corporation. However, the Respondent is Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and therefore, the Petitioner cannot maintain the writ petition in respect of the Respondent herein and accordingly, sought for dismissal of writ petition.

¶40

Further, the learned counsel for the Respondent, referring to the Inter Company Transfer of Connections dated 30.11.2018, produced along with the statement of objection and relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

¶41

case of Nagar Rice & Flour Mills and Others vs. N.Teekappa Gowda & Bros. And Others reported in ( 1970) 1 SCC 575, contended that, it is a matter of competition in a business world and therefore, the petitioner has to compete with other business or trade and therefore, sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶42

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:41840 WP No. 11829 of 2023

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that the Letter of Appointment dated 29.03.2012 (Annexure-B) has been issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited-Indane, insofar as the installation of the LPG Distributorship by the Petitioner under the Gramin Vitrak Durgam Kshetra, Distribution of the LPG connections in the respective area. It is also to be noted that, the letter dated 08.09.2016 (Annexure-D), issued by the Indian Oil Corporation-Indane, the petitioner has been promised to ensure about the area of operation to an extent of 15 kms and was directed to develop manpower and delivery infrastructure within the time frame. The said clause providing for enhancing the manpower and delivery infrastructure reads as under :

¶45

"Also, in line with the Unified Guideline for Selection of LPG Distributorship 2016, you are required to ensure mandatory home delivery facility to all your customers in the area of operation (15 km from the limits of LPG Distributorship location). In view of the above, you are directed to develop the requisite manpower and delivery infrastructure within 45 days from the date of issuance of this letter to start the home delivery effective from 24.10.2016."

¶46

7 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:41840 WP No. 11829 of 2023

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Having taken note of the promise made by the Indian

¶50

Oil Corporation at Annexure-D, the petitioner is having a legitimate expectation to enhance his business by covering an area to an extent of 15 kms., as well as to improve his Delivery Infrastructure System. In that view of the matter, when the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. as per Annexure-D has directed the Petitioner to enhance the manpower, simultaneously cannot issue Annexure-A, the advertisement to install one more connection insofar as Thovinakere Village, which is contrary to Annexure-J (Unified Guidelines for selection of LPG Distributorships) to the writ petition, wherein certain benefits have been made to the LPG Distributorship under Durgam Kshetriya Vitrak Policy.

¶51

In that view of the matter, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as the petitioner is having legitimate expectation that the RespondentBharat Petroleum Corporation along with the Indian Oil Corporation Limited should not have issued a Public Notice specifying the installation of one more LPG in the very same Village-Thovinakere, Koratagere Taluk, Tumkur District.

¶52

8 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:41840 WP No. 11829 of 2023

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

Accordingly, I pass the following :

¶56

ORDER

¶57

i) Writ petition is allowed;

¶58

ii) Item No.12 of Public Notice dated 20.05.2023, issued by the Respondent (Annexure-A), specifying installation of one more LPG in respect of Thovinakere, Koratagere Taluk, Tumkur District, is hereby set aside.

¶59

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶60

rs

¶61

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

Sri. Siddaganga Indane v. M/S Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Siddaganga Indane v. M/S Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Champaka Distributors Vs Karnataka Industrial Areas

Sri G. Prabhakar Vs Mr. Riyaz Ahmed Shariff

Sri Lakshmanadasappa @ Narasimhaiah Vs Sri L Muniyellappa

Sri N C Prabhakar Vs State of Karnataka

The Daffodils English School Vs the Karnataka State Commission

Mr K Babu Vs State of Karnataka