Yahavantha S Vs Hindustal Petroleum Corproation… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Yahavantha S Vs Hindustal Petroleum Corproation… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed in part: the second respondent's Communication dated 20.01.2024 (Annexure-H) quashed, directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's application after extending an opportunity to the petitioner to demonstrate the actual date of execution of the subject Lease Deed; further proceedings for completion of the allotment to the third respondent deferred meanwhile.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner qualified for consideration under Group-I of the Guidelines where the lease deed for the offered land was dated 27.09.2023 but was presented for registration only on 26.12.2023, the last date for uploading documents, while the application was made on 13.10.2023. +1 more

Court's answer

Clause-4[f] of the Guidelines indicates that documents must have been executed/registered/issued by the date of the application, but the respondents extended the last date for uploading the documents.

Ratio / Principle

It is an indisputable proposition that it would be open to the parties to a document to present the document for registration under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 within 90 days from the date of execution.

Key takeaways

It was incumbent upon the second respondent to ascertain the actual date of execution of the lease deed and the reason for its registration on 26.12.2023 before proceeding to cancel the provisional allotment in favour of the petitioner.ratio¶69
In the absence of such consideration and the lack of opportunity to the petitioner, the second respondent's decision to cancel the allotment is arbitrary.ratio¶73
All further proceedings for completion of the allotment (for which the third respondent stands provisionally selected) must be deferred, subject to the second respondent extending an opportunity to the petitioner to demonstrate the actual date of execution of the Lease Deed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Retail outlet dealership under the Scheduled Caste Category, provisionally allotted to the petitioner on draw of lots by communication dated 16.12.2023, was cancelled by HPCL's second respondent (Mangalore Retail Regional Office) vide communication dated 20.01.2024 (Annexure-H) on the grounds that the Appendix-III application did not disclose the relationship with the landlord and that the lease deed was registered after submission of the application. Held (allowing the petition in part and quashing Annexure-H): although Clause-4[f] of the Guidelines on Selection of Dealers For Regular and Rural Retail Outlets Through Draw of Lots/Bidding Process requires documents to be executed/registered/issued by the date of the application, the respondents had themselves extended the last date for uploading documents; a document may be presented for registration under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 within 90 days of execution; hence the second respondent ought first to have ascertained the actual date of execution of the lease deed (dated 27.09.2023, presented for registration on 26.12.2023, the last date for uploading) and the reason for the belated registration, and its failure to do so, coupled with the lack of opportunity to the petitioner, rendered the cancellation arbitrary. Second respondent directed to reconsider the application after affording the petitioner an opportunity to demonstrate the actual date of execution; further proceedings towards completing the third respondent's provisional allotment deferred until then.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:33449 WP No. 3433 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 3433 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

YAHAVANTHA S AGED 39 YEARS S/O SANJEEVA R/AT NO 9-96 PADAVU HOUSE POST SHIRVA 574116 KAUP TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. S K ACHARYA.,ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

AND:

HINDUSTAL PETROLEUM CORPROATION LIMITED (GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISES) HAVING REGIONAL OFFICE AT NO 17, JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD, MUMBAI 400020 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR.

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED (GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISES)

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:33449 WP No. 3433 of 2024

HC-KAR

MANGALORE RETAIL REGIONAL OFFICE 1^ST FLOOR, DEO GRATIS BUILDING CHILIMBI, URVA STORES, MANGALORE 575006, D K DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE HEAD NAVEEN KUMAR M G.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. B PRAMOD.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;

R3 SERVED)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOQUASH THE IMPUGNED DECISION PROCESS OF THE RESPONDENT HPCL VIDE REF. HPC16971804012369 DATED 20.01.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND TO DECLARE THE SAME AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ILLEGAL AND; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT HPCL TO CONFIRM THE ALLOTMENT OF RO DEALERSHIP IN PURSUANCE TO THEIR RESULT OF DRAW OF LOTS DATED 15.12.2023 AS PER THE COMMUNICATION ORDER DATED 16.12.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-C, WITH REGARD TO THE LOCATION POINT ON KATAPADYBELMAN ROAD FROM MOODABETTU TO SHIRVA CIRCLE, BY CALLING FOR FURNISHING THE DOCUMENTS IF ANY.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS

DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:33449 WP No. 3433 of 2024

HC-KAR

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has succeeded in his application for allotment of a retail dealership outlet under the Scheduled Caste Category with the Communication dated 16.12.2023, and the first respondent has addressed this Communication stipulating that the petitioner is provisionally selected on drawing up of lot but the award of dealership would be subject to compliance with the terms and conditions.

The first respondent has

subsequently informed the petitioner vide the Communication dated 16.12.2023 [ Annexure–C ] that he must upload different documents as mentioned in such communication. In response, the petitioner has uploaded all the documents including the Lease Deed, which is presented for registration on 26.12.2023 with the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:33449 WP No. 3433 of 2024

HC-KAR

However, the second respondent has issued the impugned communication dated 20.01.2024 [ Annexure–H ] cancelling the award of dealership to the petitioner. The second respondent has informed the petitioner that the documents submitted by him are not valid and cannot be considered under Group1 for these reasons:

[a] The Appendix-III [ the application submitted ] does not mention the relationship between the petitioner and his landlord.

[b] The lease Deed is registered after the submission of the application.

The petitioner, in filing his

application on 13.10.2023 in the prescribed Form, has disclosed the landlord’s name [ in terms of the lease deed registered on 26.12.2023 ] declaring that there is no relationship [ other than the landlord and tenant relationship] but asserting that his application

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:33449 WP No. 3433 of 2024

HC-KAR

is under Category-I. The eligibility for allotment of dealership is in terms of the Guidelines on Selection of Dealers For Regular and Rural Retail Outlets Through

Draw of Lots/Bidding Process [for short ' the Guidelines ']. The Guidelines, as part of the eligibility criteria, stipulate that the applicants will be classified into three groups viz., Group-1, Group-2 and Group3, and that [ in terms of Clause 4(vi)] the applicants in Group-I will be those who have a suitable piece of land in the advertised location/area either under ownership or long-term lease for a minimum period of 19 years 11 months.

The Guidelines further stipulate, as relevant for the present purposes, that [i] the land should be available with the applicant as on the date of application and effective for 19 years 11 months from the date of advertisement or after the date of advertisement but not later than the date of the application and [ii] the applicant who is selected

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:33449 WP No. 3433 of 2024

HC-KAR

under Group-I, if a tenant, should upload a copy of the lease deed that is executed/registered/issued by the date of the application.

Sri S. K. Acharya, the learned

counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is truthful in declaring that the petitioner has no other relationship with the landlord and in claiming allotment under Group-1, and therefore, the second respondent should not have rejected the allotment especially when the petitioner has uploaded the Lease Deed registered as on 26.12.2023 [the last date for uploading]. Sri B. Pramod, the learned counsel for the respondents, asserts that the petitioner could not have made an application under Group-I if he did not hold a Lease Deed for the land offered as of the date of the application and that the records demonstrate that the petitioner has secured registered Lease Deed after the provisional selection.

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:33449 WP No. 3433 of 2024

HC-KAR

6. Sri B. Pramod canvases that the

petitioner has declared in the application that his Lease Deed is dated 27.09.2023 but the petitioner has only uploaded a copy of the Lease Deed, which is presented for registration on 26.12.2023 and that the petitioner's provisional selection would be of any avail to him only if on verification it was found that he had the benefit of a lease deed that was executed and registered as of the last date of the application.

These rival submissions are

considered in the light of the indisputable proposition that it would be open to the parties to a document to present the document for registration under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 within 90 days from the date of execution. This Court infers that the second respondent is persuaded to hold that the petitioner did not hold a lease for the land offered as of the last date for uploading because:

8 -

NC: 2025:KHC:33449 WP No. 3433 of 2024

HC-KAR

in the application, the date of the Lease Deed is mentioned as 27.09.2023, and

though the Lease Deed is dated 27.09.2023, it is presented for registration on 26.12.2023, on the last date for uploading

However, the Clause-4[f] of the Guidelines uses the expression that indicates that the documents must have been executed/registered/issued by the date of the application, but the respondents have extended the last date for uploading the documents.

This Court opines that it was

incumbent upon the second respondent to ascertain the actual date of execution and the reason for registration on 26.12.2023 before proceeding to cancel the provisional allotment in favour of the petitioner. This Court, in the absence of such consideration and the lack of opportunity, concludes

9 -

NC: 2025:KHC:33449 WP No. 3433 of 2024

HC-KAR

that the second respondent's decision to cancel the allotment is arbitrary.

It is now brought on record that after

the impugned communication, the third respondent has been provisionally selected for the award of dealership, and this Court is of the view that all further proceedings for completion of this allotment must be deferred subject to the second respondent extending an opportunity to the petitioner to demonstrate the actual date of execution of the Lease Deed. Hence, the following

ORDER

[A] The petition is allowed in part.

[b} The second respondent's Communication dated 20.01.2024 [ Annexure-H ] is quashed directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's application after extending an opportunity to the petitioner

10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:33449 WP No. 3433 of 2024

HC-KAR

to demonstrate the actual date of

execution of the subject Lease Deed.

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

NV

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Communication dated 20.01.2024 (Annexure-H) issued by the second respondent cancelling the award of dealership to the petitioner, stating that the documents submitted were not valid and could not be considered under Group-1 because the Appendix-III application did not mention the relationship between the petitioner and his landlord and the lease deed was registered after submission of the application.¶38
Second respondent - Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Mangalore Retail Regional Office · 20.01.2024
Prior proceeding
Petitioner succeeded in his application for allotment of a retail dealership outlet under the Scheduled Caste Category; the first respondent's communication dated 16.12.2023 recorded provisional selection on draw of lots, award subject to compliance with terms and conditions.¶32
Prior proceeding
Vide communication dated 16.12.2023 (Annexure-C) the first respondent required the petitioner to upload specified documents; the petitioner uploaded all documents including the Lease Deed, which was presented for registration on 26.12.2023 with the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar.¶34
Prior proceeding
Petitioner filed his application on 13.10.2023 in the prescribed form disclosing the landlord's name (in terms of the lease deed registered on 26.12.2023), declaring no relationship with the landlord other than landlord and tenant, and asserting his application was under Category-I.¶42
Prior proceeding
Eligibility governed by the Guidelines on Selection of Dealers For Regular and Rural Retail Outlets Through Draw of Lots/Bidding Process; in terms of Clause 4(vi), Group-I applicants are those with suitable land in the advertised location/area under ownership or long-term lease for a minimum period of 19 years 11 months.¶47
Prior proceeding
Guidelines further stipulate that the land should be available with the applicant as on the date of application and effective for 19 years 11 months from the date of advertisement or after the date of advertisement but not later than the date of the application, and that a Group-I tenant should upload a lease deed executed/registered/issued by the date of the application.¶52
Prior proceeding
After the impugned communication, the third respondent was provisionally selected for the award of dealership.¶75