Smt M Saraswathi G Poojary Ganesh Vs Chief Regional Manager

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:6468 WP No. 3266 of 2021

¶2

1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 3266 OF 2021 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. M.SARASWATHI.G.POOJARY GANESH W/O GANESH POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1-131R, POOJASHREE NILAYA(GEDDI MANE), MANIYADI POST, BIJOOR VILLAGE, BYNDOOR TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 244.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR.K., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER, MANGALORE LPG REGION, HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., MANGALORE LPG REGIONAL OFFICE, DEO GRATIAS, 2^ND FLOOR,

¶13

Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

CHILIMBI-URVA STORES, MANGALORE-575 006.

¶15

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

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT.NAKSHA.G.SAPPE., ADVOCATE FOR KING STUBB & KASIVA., ADVOCATES)

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:6468 WP No. 3266 of 2021

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Sri.Vijayakumar.K., counsel for the petitioner and

¶24

Smt.Naksha.G.Sappe., counsel on behalf of M/s.King Stubb and Kasiva., for the respondents have appeared in person.

¶25

The order dated:07.09.2020 passed by the first respondent vide Annexure-A is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as setout in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

¶26

Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care.

¶27

Suffice it to note that an advertisement was released in leading daily newspaper on 17.08.2017 jointly by PSU Oil Companies inviting online applications for the appointment of LPG Distributorships of various categories at various locations, in which the location of Jadkal in Udupi District was destined for HPCL. The selections were to be held

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:6468 WP No. 3266 of 2021

¶30

in accordance with the Unified Selection Guidelines (USG) through a draw of lots comprising of qualified candidates.

¶31

There were thirteen candidates eligible for the draw of lots, which was held on 10.01.2018 in which the petitioner was emerged as the successful candidate. The same was conveyed to her vide email dated:11.01.2018 and she deposited Rs.40,000/- as a fee for carrying out Field Verification of Credentials (FVC). The Authority conducted Field Verification of Credentials and came to know that the land that was offered by the petitioner did not fulfilled the eligibility criteria of brochure of the Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributors. Moreover, the lease agreement in respect of offered land was not registered but was notarized. The registration was one of the requirement as per the Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributors.

¶32

It is significant to note that the land offered by the petitioner belong to his co-brother. As per the Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributors, a co-brother does not come under the definition of the family unit. Because, the petitioner did not fulfill the guidelines of the Unified Guidelines

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:6468 WP No. 3266 of 2021

¶35

for Selection of LPG Distributors and hence, her candidature was rejected on 11.09.2018. It is pivotal to note that the rejection was questioned before this Court in Writ Petition No.11567/2019 and the petitioner sought withdrawal of the Writ Petition. A true copy of the order is furnished along with the Writ Petition and the same is marked as Annexure-N. A perusal of the same reflects that after arguing the matter for sometime, counsel for the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition with a liberty to file a representation with regard to his grievance to the Chief Regional Manager. Accordingly, the Writ Petition was disposed of and the liberty was accorded vide order dated:22.06.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated:Nil. The Chief Regional Manager - LPG & Duly Constituted Attorney, Mangalore LPG RO considered the representation. The communication is furnished along with the Writ Petition and the same is marked as Annexure-A. A careful perusal of the same depicts that as per the order of this Court, a speaking order was passed and the same was communicated to the petitioner. This Court has perused the order with care and it runs about three pages and the Chief Regional Manager - LPG & Duly Constituted Attorney, Mangalore LPG RO extenso

¶36

5 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:6468 WP No. 3266 of 2021

¶38

referred to the material on record and concluded that the petitioner failed to meet eligibility criteria mentioned in the selection guidelines. The reasons accorded are just and proper. To conclude, I can say only this much that because of the failure to meet eligibility criteria mentioned in the selection guidelines, the petitioner cannot succeed. I find no grounds to quash Annexure-A. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶39

5. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed .

¶40

Sd/(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE

¶41

MRP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 38

Smt M Saraswathi G Poojary Ganesh v. Chief Regional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt M Saraswathi G Poojary Ganesh v. Chief Regional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Thomas Jacob Vs Sri M Ramaiah

Smt Pushpalatha @ Ankitha Kavya Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Waquar Ali H M Vs Smt K v Bindu

M/S. Kudgi Transmission Limited Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Manjappa Gowda Vs Chief Secretary to the Government of Karnataka

Smt. Meenakshamma Vs Chief Secretary to the Government of Karnataka