Smt Jyothi D H v. Union of India

Karnataka HC4 Jul 2025WP/19610/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru; WP No. 19610 of 2025 (GM-RES); Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav; HPCL retail outlet dealership; cancellation of letter of interest dated 29.02.2024; letter dated 10.06.2025 Ref.BRO/AR/RET Annexure-E; show cause notices 14.11.2024, 17.01.2025, 22.04.2025; site readiness; NOC drawings; right for consideration versus vested right; 13 other applicants; lottery; Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India; petition disposed off.

What did the court decide?

The Court cannot call upon the respondents to make an exception for the petitioner: reminders were issued and several opportunities afforded were not taken advantage of, and any direction to make an exception would prejudice the legitimate rights of the 13 other applicants under the same notification who are otherwise willing. ¶¶44

Smt Jyothi D H Vs Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:24199 WP No. 19610 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 19610 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT JYOTHI D H AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, W/O SRI SATHISH C H, CHIKKAHALLI, Y N HOSAKOTE HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572141.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. K J JAGADEESHA., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110001

¶16

REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶17

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED HEAD OFFICE, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT PETROLEUM HOUSE, 17, JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 REP BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER.

¶18

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED BANGALORE REGIONAL OFFICE,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:24199 WP No. 19610 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

HAVING ITS OFFICE AT IST FLOOR, BSNL CACT, DOORAVANINAGARA, KRISHNARAJAPURAM, BENGALURU-560016 REP BY ITS CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. B PRASAD., ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE LETTER DTD. 10.06.2025 IN REF.BRO/AR/RET ISSUED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNX-E.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

Petitioner has sought for setting aside of the letter at Annexure-E whereby the respondent - HPCL has cancelled the letter of interest dated 29.02.2024 issued for retail outlet dealership. The said cancellation was made while observing that even after lapse of 16 months, site was not made available. The reference is made to the previous show cause notices dated 17.01.2025 and 22.04.2025. It is further observed that after issuance of show cause

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:24199 WP No. 19610 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

notices, petitioner had not come forward for collection of

¶34

NOC drawings and applications.

¶35

It is the case of the respondent - Authority that the petitioner was given several opportunities to demonstrate site readiness after obtaining statutory and other necessary approvals for the retail outlet. Learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 has filed a memo enclosing show cause notices dated 14.11.2024, 17.01.2025 22.04.2025. It is clear that the petitioner has not adhered to the time schedule.

¶36

Sri. B. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for

¶37

respondents 2 and 3 submits that there are 13 others who are ready and from amongst 13 others, by lottery according to settled procedure, LOI would be issued. It is submitted that no exception can be made as all of the 13 others were applicants under the same notification and in terms of the notification, the time prescribed is inviolable. It is further submitted that despite indulgence having been

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:24199 WP No. 19610 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

shown for more than about 1½ years as petitioner even as

¶42

on date is not ready with the site in all aspects including conversion, no further indulgence could be shown.

¶43

Learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 submits that as of now petitioner stands excluded for the present. However, if all other applications below the petitioner fail, theoretically, application of the petitioner may come up for consideration as per the procedure at a later time.

¶44

In light of the stand of the respondent, this Court cannot call upon the respondents to make an exception while noticing that the reminders are issued by the respondents and several opportunities afforded have not been taken advantage of. Any direction to make an exception would prejudice the legitimate rights of 13 others who otherwise are willing and accordingly no order can be passed ignoring the rights of the other applicants. It is also noticed that the right is one for consideration and

¶45

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:24199 WP No. 19610 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

there is no absolute right for allotment. Such right not

¶49

being a vested right is contingent upon fulfillment of conditions and accordingly, no grounds are made out for interference.

¶50

6. Accordingly, petition is disposed off .

¶51