Jayashama Vs the Union of India

BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD MANGALORE TERRITORY RETAIL MANGALORE COASTAL INSTALLATION NEAR APMC YARD, OFF NH-17 BAIKAMPADY, MANGALORE D K DISTRICT

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:30158 WP No. 51613 of 2019

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

CPIO BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD OFFICE OF STATE HEAD (RETAIL) KARNATAKA “DUPARK TRINITY” (7TH FLOOR) 17 M G ROAD BANGALORE-560001

¶23

HEAD (RETAIL) SOUTH BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD SOUTHERN REGION NI.1, RANGANATHAN GARDENS OFF 11^TH MAIN ROAD, ANNA NAGAR CHENNAI-40

¶24

SHANTHA K W/O CHOMA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT NO. 2-51, DARKASU, KODIYALA VILLAGE AND POST, SULLIA, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574212.

¶25

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, MANGALURU-575001.

¶26

…. RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR., AGA FOR R2 & R7; SRI. SHANTI BHUSHAN., DSGI FOR R1; SRI. N.J. KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5; SRI. DHANANJAYA KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R6)

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE CANCELLATION OF CANDIDATURE LETTER DATED 15.02.2019 SENT BY THE R3 PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-A AND ANNEXURE-W, THE NOC DATED 16.03.2022 BEARING NO. ARM(3)CR 56/2019/E-76044/C3 TO THE PETITION, AND FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS SEEKING DIRECTION ON THE RESPONDENTS TO CANCEL THE WHOLE SELECTION PROCESS FOR DEALERSHIP AND CALL FOR FRESH PROCESS BY CHANGING REGULAR RO TO RURAL RO AND THE CATEGORY FROM SC TO OPEN

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:30158 WP No. 51613 of 2019

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

AT BELLARE LEAVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE PETITIONER FOR FILING FRESH APPLICATION SEEKING CANDIDATURE, AND FOR SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEF IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 21.07.2025, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶34

CAV ORDER

¶35

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

¶36

following reliefs:

¶37

i. To issue a writ of certiorari quashing of the Cancellation of Candidature letter dated 15.02.2019 sent by the Respondent No.3 produced herewith as Annexure-A and Annexure-W , the No Objection Certificate dated 16.03.2022 bearing No.ARM(3)CR 56/2019/E-76044/C3 to the petition, and for a Writ of Mandamus seeking direction on the Respondents to cancel the whole selection process for dealership and call for fresh process by changing Regular RO to Rural RO and the category from SC to open at Bellare leaving opportunity to the petitioner for filing fresh application seeking candidature, and for such other and further relief in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶38

The petitioner claims to be an engineering graduate and

¶39

the owner of some of the properties, which he acquired under family partition dated 03.06.2015, which has resulted in his severance from the family status. Pursuant

¶40

4 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:30158 WP No. 51613 of 2019

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

to which he claims that he has no connection with his earlier family.

¶44

The petitioner being interested in setting up of a Retail Outlet (‘RO’ for short) for selling petrol, diesel and gas with the dealership of respondent, the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘BPCL’ for brevity), when the respondent-BPCL had called for candidates for such dealership of Regular as well as Rural Retail outlet in an advertisement, which has been published by BPCL on 25.11.2018, an application was submitted by the petitioner on 11-12-2018.

¶45

In terms of the advertisement, the petitioner had submitted his application for the location Bellare of Dakshina Kannada District, shown at Sl.No.51 to the advertisement. The type of Retail Outlet being Regular and the same was reserved for a person belonging to scheduled caste category.

¶46

Acting upon the said application, the respondent-BPCL considering that there was no other applicant, did not go on with the ‘draw of lots’ and declared the petitioner to

¶47

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:30158 WP No. 51613 of 2019

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

be selected for the said Retail Outlet vide its letter dated 11.01.2019. By another email dated 11.01.2019, the petitioner was called upon to remit a sum of Rs.30,000/through online mode towards the initial security deposit as also to submit the set of documents as specified therein including the eligibility certificate for scheduled caste category, after which the verification of all attested photocopies would be done with the original documents during the field verification of credentials. The petitioner was categorically informed that his candidature would be cancelled in case the initial security deposit is not remitted or the documents listed in the said email were not submitted within 10 days from the date of the intimation.

¶50

On 14.01.2019, the petitioner submitted some of the documents; however, despite having been called upon to furnish the category certificate for scheduled caste, the same was not furnished. Thereafter, the petitioner, vide his letter dated 18.01.2019, had contended that his land at Bellare did not meet the norms prescribed for Regular

¶51

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:30158 WP No. 51613 of 2019

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

RO, and it is after clearance of the said doubt that he would make payment of the initial security deposit, though again no reference was made to the document to be submitted.

¶54

Vide email dated 07.02.2019, the respondent, BPCL, informed the petitioner that the initial security deposit not having been paid, his candidature stood cancelled. The petitioner, by way of another letter dated 12.02.2019, had contended that the clarification not having been issued, his application cannot be cancelled, nor his candidature rejected, and until such clarification is issued, he cannot pay the security deposit.

¶55

The petitioner thereafter filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking location details of proposed retail outlets at Bellare and the same was rejected by the CPIO on the grounds that the third-party personal information would be covered under the said query and, as such, cannot be furnished. As such, the petitioner had filed an appeal, which also came to be rejected.

¶56

7 -

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:30158 WP No. 51613 of 2019

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

The petitioner claims that thereafter, the license for the RO was allotted to the 6^th respondent. In this regard, his contention is that the 6^th respondent does not qualify for such allotment. The 6^th respondent, claiming to be a tenant under Yusuf S/o. Ibrahim, who had sold the property before the application had been made by Respondent No.6, in that regard, a copy of the sale deed has been produced. The BPCL, vide its letter dated 15.02.2019, had treated the complaint of the petitioner above as closed. It is in that background that the petitioner is before this Court challenging the closure.

¶60

Sri K. Srihari, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that:

¶61

10.1. The petitioner, being a Brahmin, was not qualified to be selected for the RO, which had been reserved for the scheduled caste category.

¶62

10.2. The advertisement which had been issued notifying that the said RO as a Regular type of retail outlet is misconceived inasmuch as, Bellare

¶63

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:30158 WP No. 51613 of 2019

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

is not a town and as such, in terms of the Brochure, which has been issued, a Regular RO would be one which is located on Highways (National Highways/State Highways and Urban/Semi-Urban areas within Municipal Limits of a Town). Bellare, not being a Town Municipality and not being an Urban or Semi-Urban area, could not be notified as a Regular RO.

¶66

10.3. His submission is that Bellare is not a Town Municipality, any outlet in Bellare would have to be classified as a Rural Retail Outlet and in terms thereof, the benefit of payment of a lesser security deposit was required to be given to the petitioner.

¶67

10.4. Apart therefrom, he submits that the petitioner, the allotment being made as a Regular RO is bad in law.

¶68

10.5. The advertisement which has been issued is an incorrect advertisement, and an area of a retail outlet which ought to have been classified as a

¶69

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:30158 WP No. 51613 of 2019

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

Rural RO has been falsely classified as a Regular RO, and as such, it would be required for the respondent-BPCL to redo the entire process.

¶72

10.6. Insofar as Respondent No.6 is concerned, he submits that Respondent No.6 has no eligibility for the land provided by Respondent No.6, having been sold by a landlord. The lease between the landlord and Respondent No.6 is not subsisting.

¶73

10.7. To support the above contentions, he relies upon the following decisions:

¶74

10.8. The decision of Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of GURURAJ VS. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER¹ , more particularly para 3 and 7 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

¶75

3. The undisputed facts and circumstances are that the first respondent called for applications for allotment of dealership to operate Rural Retail Outlets. There is difference between a Regular Retail Outlet and a Rural Retail Outlet, and the difference is essentially in the location of these outlets. As per the applicable Guidelines, a Regular Retail Outlets must be located in areas abutting National and State

¶76

1 WP.NO.104339/2021 DATED 13.01.2022

¶77

NC: 2025:KHC:30158 WP No. 51613 of 2019

¶78

10 -

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

Highways and within urban and semi urban areas (within municipal limits of town) and the Rural Retail Outlet must be at locations in rural areas but not on highways (either National Highway or State Highway) and outside the municipal limits of town. The applicants are categorized in three groups depending on the nature of the title of the lands offered and whether the applicants have offered any land. The applicants having suitable piece of land, either by way of ownership or long term lease (for a period of 19 years 11 months) are classified as Group 1 applicants, and the applicants who have a firm offer for suitable piece of land either for a purchase or a long term lease are classified as Group 2 applicants. The applicants who do not offer any land are classified as Group-3 applicants.

¶81

7. In the light of the rival submissions, the question for consideration is:

¶82

“Whether the petitioner has established any reason for interference with the issuance of letter of intent dated 19.08.2020 and the rejection of the petitioner’s application for allotment of the Rural Retail Outlet Talker at Yalaburga Taluk, Koppal District”

¶83

10.9. By referring to Gururaja’s case, he submits that

¶84

this Court has recognised the difference between a Regular Retail Outlet and a Rural Retail Outlet.

¶85

This Court has also observed that a Regular Retail Outlet must be located in areas abutting National and State Highways, and as such, he submits that

¶86

11 -

¶87

NC: 2025:KHC:30158 WP No. 51613 of 2019

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

the land of the petitioner is not situated on the National or State Highways. Bellare is not a Town Municipal Council. The reference in the advertisement is misconceived. Once there is a wrong classification made, the entire process would have to be redone.

¶90

10.10. He relies upon the decision in the case of ABHISHEK JAIN Vs. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER² , more particularly paras 5, 14 and 21 thereof, which reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

¶91

5. Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State. It is submitted that mere issuance of Letter of Intent does not confer any indefeasible right on the petitioner and when the respondents came to know that the advertisement was issued by wrongly showing location within the rural area, and in fact, it would fall within Regular RO, then the respondent instead of perpetuating the mistake, decided to cancel the advertisement and accordingly, it cannot be said that the action of the respondents is bad in law.

¶92

14. Since the location in question was advertised as Rural RO, therefore, there were only two candidates. Had it been advertised as Regular RO, then every aspirant would have got an opportunity to participate if, they were interested in doing so. Thus, if the contention of the petitioner that the only difference

¶93

2 2021 SCC ONLINE MP 6045 : AIR 2021 MP 168

¶94

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:30158 WP No. 51613 of 2019

¶95

HC-KAR

¶96

between the Regular RO and Rural RO is the security amount and the petitioner is ready to deposit the difference in security amount is accepted, then it would be violative of Article 19 of the Constitution of India.

¶97

21. Thus, this Court cannot perpetuate the mistake which has been committed by the respondent thereby violating the fundamental rights of the persons, who were deprived from participating in the selection process. So far as the investment done by the petitioner is concerned, he has a remedy to seek damages from the respondent Corporation by availing a remedy provided under the civil law.

¶98

10.11. By relying on Abhishek Jain's case, he submits that, if the advertisement was issued by wrongly showing location within the rural area, when in fact it would fall within Regular RO, the action on part of the Petroleum Company in cancelling the advertisement and reissuing a fresh advertisement is a proper methodology which could be adopted, which needs to be applied in the present matter also, since a RO has been shown as a Regular RO and not Rural RO.

¶99

10.12. He relies upon the decision in the case of

¶100

HAROON A.K. Vs. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION

¶101

13 -

¶102

NC: 2025:KHC:30158 WP No. 51613 of 2019

¶103

HC-KAR

¶104

LTD., AND ANOTHER³ , more particularly paras

¶105

17 and 18 thereof, which reproduced hereunder

¶106

for easy reference:

¶107

17. The respondents notified the locations in respect of which the petitioner in WP(C) No. 22397/2019 submitted applications, as “Rural Retail Outlet”. Subsequently, during the de-duplication process, which is an arrangement between the oil marketing companies, it was noted that the locations advertised by the 1^st respondent would fall under the category “Regular ROs”. The case of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 22397/2019 is that his locations is in Rural area beyond Municipal limits. The respondents cancelled the selection process because the notification issued by them was erroneous. As regards the petitioner in WP(C) No. 3415/2019, the outlet was shown in the advertisement as Regular Retail Outlet, and later it was found that it does not fall under the said category.

¶108

18. Here, it is to be noted that the categorisation ‘Regular’ and ‘Rural’ made by the respondents, is not strictly on the fact whether a Retail Outlet falls in Rural area or Urban area. Even if a location is in rural area, if the location falls on National Highways, State Highways, Express ways or A, B & C Class Markets, it will be categorised as “Regular” and not “Rural”. In this case, the mistake committed by the Oil Company was in the advertisement. The locations of petitioners may or may not satisfy the categorisation in the advertisement. If the respondents have made errors in their advertisement, they are bound to correct the same, else it will affect chances of others who would have submitted applications had the locations been described properly.

¶109

3 2021 SCC ONLINE KER 1875: AIR 2021 (NOC 755) 303

¶110

14 -

¶111

NC: 2025:KHC:30158 WP No. 51613 of 2019

¶112

HC-KAR

¶113

10.13. By relying on Haroon's case, he submits that where an advertisement indicated the location as a Rural RO, but on examination, it was found that it fell within the category Regular RO. The Petroleum Company cancelled the process on account of it being erroneous, which was upheld by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court.

¶114

10.14. He relies upon the judgement of this Court in the case of VIPUL GUNDAPPA THARTHARE Vs. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD

¶115

AND OTHERS⁴ , more particularly paras 12 and 13 thereof, which reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

¶116

12. Keeping in mind the enunciation of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, we are of the considered view that the respondents No.1 and 2 have flouted the stipulations of Notification at Annexure-A and A1. The action of respondents No.1 and 2/Corporation is manifestly illegal and arbitrary, as is evident from the pleadings and evidence on record. The petitioner has every right to seek equal treatment in the matter of allotment of

¶117

4 WP.NO.100246/2021 DATED 20.08.2024

¶118

15 -

¶119

NC: 2025:KHC:30158 WP No. 51613 of 2019

¶120

HC-KAR

¶121

dealership of retail outlet (petrol pump), if the authority intends to allot the same on Boragaon village on Boragaon-Ichalakaranji road. The action of respondent No.1 and 2 in allotting the dealership in favour of respondent No.3 is not only contrary to the subject Notification, but also depriving an opportunity to the similarly placed person, who intends to seek allotment of dealership on Boragaon village on Boragaon-Ichalakaranji road. The action of respondents No.1 and 2 does not withstand the scrutiny under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The respondent/Corporation being instrumentality of the State is required to act fairly by providing equal opportunity to the intended applicants, when it intended to dispose off the largesse of the State. At the cost of repetition, it needs to be observed that the petitioner may not have any vested right of getting dealership at the hands of respondents No.1 and 2. However, he has every right to ask for equal treatment in participation of process of allotment of dealership. This view again gains support from the decision Ramana Dayaram Shetty supra. Hence, on this ground also, the action of respondents No.1 and 2 is required to be interfered with.

¶122

13. For the aforementioned reasons, we proceed to pass the following:

¶123

ORDER

¶124

1. Writ Appeal is allowed.

¶125

2. The impugned order of learned Single Judge is herby set-aside. Consequently, writ petition filed by the petitioner in WP No.148541/2020 is allowed by setting aside the selection of respondent No.3 for a retail outlet (petrol pump) dealership.

¶126

16 - NC: 2025:KHC:30158 WP No. 51613 of 2019

¶127

HC-KAR

¶128

3. It is open for the respondents No.1 and 2 to call for separate application for allotment of retail outlet (petrol pump) dealership at Boragaon village.

¶129

4. No order as to costs.

¶130

Pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly, they are disposed off.

¶131

10.15. By referring to Vipul Gundappa Tharthare's case, his submission is that the petitioner has a right to seek equal treatment in the matter of allotment of dealership, which has not been granted to the petitioner, and as such, Annexure-A is required to be quashed.

¶132

10.16. He refers to the decision in the case of JYOTHSNA Vs. MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMEICALS LTD. AND ANOTHER,⁵ more particularly, para 2 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

¶133

2. The learned counsel for the respondent Corporation submits that the respondent corporation does not deny the fact that the notification at Annexure-A was issued and the petitioner is the only applicant, who responded to the notification. However, after the survey was held in the presence of the petitioner, it came to the notice

¶134

5 WP.NO.5673/2023 DATED 12.10.2023

¶135

17 -

¶136

NC: 2025:KHC:30158 WP No. 51613 of 2019

¶137

HC-KAR

¶138

of the respondent Corporation that since the land in question offered by the petitioner is next to the State Highway, the dealership should have been given under the Regular Retail Outlet and not as a Rural Retail Outlet. This mistake having come to the notice of the respondent Corporation, the respondent Corporation has taken a decision to issue a fresh notification. The learned counsel would further add that the petitioner is free to participate in the subsequent notification.

¶139

10.17. By relying on Jyothsna's case, he submits that

¶140

after a survey was conducted, it came to the notice of the respondent corporation that the land offered was next to the State Highway. The dealership was required to be given as a Regular RO and not as a Rural RO.

¶141

10.18. He relies upon the decision in the case of

¶142

RANADHIR Vs. M/S. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED⁶ , more particularly para 3 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

¶143

3. Sri.C.V.Angadi, on appearance, has filed a memo enclosing a notification dated 12.07.2023 issued by the Public Works Department and submits that it is under the said notification that a rural road was

¶144

6 WP.NO.100237/2024 DATED 20.01.2024.

¶145

18 - NC: 2025:KHC:30158 WP No. 51613 of 2019

¶146

HC-KAR

¶147

designated as a State Highway. Thus, the notification issued by the respondents on 28.06.2023 is proper and correct since as on that date it was a rural road and as such any application submitted by any of the applicants would be considered as a rural retail outlet and the subsequent classification of the road as a State Highway would not have any bearing.

¶148

10.19. By relying on Ranadhir's case, his submission is that the status of the road as on the date of notification is required to be considered.

¶149

10.20. He relies upon the decision in the case of RAVI KUMAR Vs. TERRITORY CO-ORDINATOR (RETAIL), BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED,⁷ more particularly paras 4 and 5 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

¶150

4. The prayer sought is only with reference to the location of petrol pump at Devara Navadagi village of Sindagi Taluk. But according to the learned counsel for the petitioner the said village was shown to be situated in Indi Taluk in the notification issued by the respondent dated 25.11.2018 as per Annexure-A. The respondent in fact issued a notification for appointment of Regular/Rural Retail Outlet Dealership, that is, Petrol Pump Dealership along with a list of proposed locations including Devara Navadagi village showing it as situated at Indi taluk instead of Sindagi taluk. This made the writ petitioner to

¶151

7 WP.NO.202696/2019 DATED 25.06.2019.

¶152

19 -

¶153

NC: 2025:KHC:30158 WP No. 51613 of 2019

¶154

HC-KAR

¶155

approach this Court seeking direction to the respondent to issue fresh notification correcting the location of Devara Navadagi village in Sindagi Taluk instead of Indi Taluk. Now the present application is filed seeking vacation of the interim order and in the application itself there is an indication that the location made in the advertisement pertaining to the Devara Navaagi village in Indi taluk has been cancelled.

¶156

5. The learned counsel for the respondent, in support of the same, files a memo along with the notice of cancellation notification dated 06.06.2019, wherein the said document discloses that “cancellation of locations in the Advertisement published in the website for appointment on Regular/ Rural Retail Outlet (Petrol Pump) Dealership by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited dated 25.11.2018.” The said document also discloses in a tabular column that at Sl.No.383 Devara Navadagi village Indi Taluk, Bijapur Rural is also included in the cancellation list and it is also specifically stated that the application fee of those applicants who have already submitted an application along with requisite application fee for the above locations, shall be refunded.

¶157

10.21. By relying on Ravi Kumar’s case, his submission is that where there is an error in the advertisement, the right course of action would be to cancel the advertisement.

¶158

10.22. It is on the basis of all the above, Sri K. Shrihari, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit

¶159

20 - NC: 2025:KHC:30158 WP No. 51613 of 2019

¶160

HC-KAR

¶161

that the petitioner is required to be allowed and the reliefs sought be granted.

¶162

Sri N. J. Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.3 to 5 would submit that:

¶163

11.1. There is nothing wrong with the advertisement which has been published by BPCL inasmuch as it has been categorically indicated in the advertisement that the location Bellare is situated in the revenue District of Dakshina Kannada and the applications are invited for the establishment of a Regular RO by persons belonging to the scheduled caste category. The advertisement being clear, it is the petitioner who claims to be a Brahmin who has applied for a reserved category.

¶164

11.2. In the said application, there is no mention made of the petitioner being a Brahmin or not being a member of a scheduled caste. The petitioner claims to own the land, there being no other applicant who owns land. The BPCL confirmed the petitioner to be the successful candidate and

¶165

21 - NC: 2025:KHC:30158 WP No. 51613 of 2019

¶166

HC-KAR

¶167

called upon him to make payment of the initial security deposit to carry out field verification, as well as document verification.

¶168

11.3. His submission is that the petitioner, knowing fully well about all the details of the advertisement and knowing fully well that the petitioner did not qualify to apply under the category, had falsely applied and as such, necessary action would have to be taken against the petitioner. Insofar as the wrong classification of the RO as Regular RO instead of Rural RO, he submits that the location is identified to be on a State Highway, and as such, whether Bellare is a Town Municipal Council or not, the location identified as a State Highway would be a Regular RO.

¶169

11.4. On the above grounds, he submits that the writ petition is required to be dismissed.

¶170

Heard, Sri K. Shrihari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.J.Kumar, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.3 to 5 and perused papers.

¶171

22 -

¶172

NC: 2025:KHC:30158 WP No. 51613 of 2019

¶173

HC-KAR

¶174

The points that would arise for consideration of this

¶175

Court are:

¶176

1) Whether an applicant who has applied in terms of an advertisement, later on, can claim that the advertisement was wrong and the process needs to be redone after he has been selected?

¶177

2) Whether the petitioner could have applied for a grant of authorisation in respect of a Retail Outlet which has been reserved for the Scheduled Caste Community?

¶178

3) Whether in the present case, Bellare qualifies to be a Regular Retail Outlet or a Rural Retail Outlet?

¶179

4) What order?

¶180

I answer the above points as under:-

¶181

Answer to point No.1: Whether an applicant who has applied in terms of an advertisement, later on, can claim that the advertisement was wrong and the process needs to be redone after he has been selected?

¶182

15.1. The petitioner was well aware of the classification which had been made of Bellare and the reservation which had been made of Bellare. An advertisement having been taken out by the BPCL, which would amount to an invitation to offer, it is the petitioner who applied for a grant of

¶183

23 - NC: 2025:KHC:30158 WP No. 51613 of 2019

¶184

HC-KAR

¶185

such outlet by submitting an application online. When the advertisement had been issued, it was clearly and categorically seen that the BPCL had classified the outlet as a Regular Retail Outlet and that it was reserved for a person belonging to the scheduled caste category.

¶186

15.2. Being aware of all these requirements, the petitioner submitted his application, but later on sought to contend that the classification of the location and the reservation of the location are not proper. The petitioner, having acted on the advertisement, had submitted an application. In my considered opinion, he cannot approbate and reprobate and claim that the application which he had himself submitted is bad in law and or nonest.

¶187

15.3. The petitioner, knowing fully well that the location Bellare had been reserved for a person belonging to the scheduled caste category, the petitioner, being a Brahmin, could not have applied for it.

¶188

24 - NC: 2025:KHC:30158 WP No. 51613 of 2019

¶189

HC-KAR

¶190

Respondent No.2/7, would have to take necessary action in relation thereto as permissible under law.

¶191

15.4. The petitioner apparently has deliberately applied for the allocation of the RO knowing fully well that he was not eligible for it.

¶192

15.5. Hence, I answer point No.1 by holding that an applicant who has applied in terms of an advertisement, later on, cannot claim that the advertisement was wrong and the process needs to be redone after he has been selected.

¶193

Answer to point No.2: Whether the petitioner could have applied for grant of authorisation in respect of a Retail Outlet which has been reserved for Scheduled Caste Community?

¶194

16.1. The submission of Sri K. Shrihari, learned counsel

¶195

for the petitioner, is that the location Bellare can only be a Rural RO and not a Regular RO, and the same is not within the limits of the Town Municipal Corporation.

¶196

25 - NC: 2025:KHC:30158 WP No. 51613 of 2019

¶197

HC-KAR

¶198

16.2. Per contra, Sri.N.J.Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos . 3 to 5, has placed before this Court a notification declaring the concerned road as a State Highway, and it is for that reason that the location is situated on a State Highway. The estimated monthly sales being higher, the same has been classified as a Regular RO.

¶199

16.3. The petitioner was well aware of such classification in the advertisement before even submitting an application. The petitioner cannot, therefore, take advantage of his own submission and contend that neither could his application have been accepted by BPCL, nor did the petitioner satisfy the criteria required.

¶200

16.4. I am unable to agree with such a contention on the part of the petitioner. It is the petitioner who himself seeks to disqualify himself on the ground that he does not satisfy the relevant criteria. If that be so, it was not available for the petitioner

¶201

26 - NC: 2025:KHC:30158 WP No. 51613 of 2019

¶202

HC-KAR

¶203

to have submitted his application regarding the advertisement published by the respondent, BPCL. The petitioner, knowing fully well that he did not belong to the Scheduled Caste category.

¶204

16.5. Thus, I answer point number two by holding that once a location has been reserved for the SC category, only persons who belong to the SC category can participate in the said process by filing the necessary applications.

¶205

Answer to point No.3: Whether in the present case, Bellare qualifies to be a Regular Retail Outlet or a Rural Retail Outlet?

¶206

17.1. The submission of Sri K.Shrihari, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that Bellare is not a Town Municipal Counsel. Therefore, it cannot be a Regular RO but has to be a Rural RO.

¶207

17.2. This contention is completely misconceived inasmuch as the location is stated to be on a State Highway, as regards which a gazette notification has been produced by Sri N.J Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos . 3 to 5.

¶208

27 - NC: 2025:KHC:30158 WP No. 51613 of 2019

¶209

HC-KAR

¶210

17.3. In terms of the brochure, it is not only a property which is located in an urban area or within a Town Municipal Corporation limits, but also a property which is located on National Highways and/or State Highways, which would qualify to be a Regular RO.

¶211

17.4. The petitioner, knowing fully well about the advertisement and the requirement thereof, having applied for such an authorisation, cannot take a dual stand as sought to be done, which is completely dishonest.

¶212

17.5. Insofar as the decisions which have been relied upon by the petitioner, the decision in Gururaja’s case referred to supra was one where applications were for allotment of dealerships to operate Rural Retail Outlets. The petitioner in that case, having offered a land that abuts the state highway, could not seek for authorisation to be made as a Rural Retail Outlet. That is to say, the advertisement being for Rural RO, a candidate could not furnish

¶213

28 - NC: 2025:KHC:30158 WP No. 51613 of 2019

¶214

HC-KAR

¶215

land that abuts a State Highway and claim for a Rural RO.

¶216

17.6. The said judgment would work contrary to the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, inasmuch as if the vice versa proposition is taken, if the advertisement is for Regular RO, a candidate cannot furnish land, which does not satisfy the criteria for a Regular RO and claim that the advertisement itself is false.

¶217

17.7. The judgment in Abhishek Jain's case will also not further the interest of the petitioner, inasmuch as in that case the classification made by the Authority was erroneous, which was sought to be rectified. In the present case there is no error in the classification. The respondent-BPCL has categorically contended that the classification of the RO is as Regular, and as such, only such classification would be considered.

¶218

17.8. The decision in Haroon 's case is again a case where applications were invited for Rural RO but

¶219

29 - NC: 2025:KHC:30158 WP No. 51613 of 2019

¶220

HC-KAR

¶221

later on it was found that the properties were located next to a State Highway and as such fresh applications were invited for Regular RO, which would not further the case of the petitioner.

¶222

17.9. The decision in Vipul Gundappa Tartare's case relates to the right of an applicant for equal treatment. The said decision would expose the double standards of the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner, knowing fully well that the RO was reserved for a person belonging to the scheduled caste category, has applied for the same even though the petitioner belongs to the Brahmin community. There being a categorisation of RO made as Regular, it is only if there is any discrimination made as regards such a Regular RO that the aforesaid decision cannot be pressed into service. The reservation being made for the scheduled caste category is only for a person belonging to the scheduled caste category who could allege discrimination, not a person belonging to the Brahmin community.

¶223

30 - NC: 2025:KHC:30158 WP No. 51613 of 2019

¶224

HC-KAR

¶225

17.10. The decision in Jyothsna's case was again one where there is a mistake which had been committed in the classification, which was rectified, which would not apply to the present case.

¶226

17.11. The decision in Ranadhir’s case was one, when an advertisement had been issued, the road was a rural road, but at the time when the application was considered, the road was upgraded to be a State Highway. Thus, this Court held that it is a classification of the road as on the date on which the advertisement was issued, which is material.

¶227

17.12. The facts in that case and the facts in the present case being completely different, the said decision would not be applicable.

¶228

17.13. The decision in Ravi Kumar’s case was again where there was an error in the classification of the RO which is sought to be rectified by issuance of fresh advertisement and as such, is not applicable.

¶229

31 - NC: 2025:KHC:30158 WP No. 51613 of 2019

¶230

HC-KAR

¶231

17.14. I answer Point No.3 by holding that the location at Bellare abutting a State Highway qualifies to be a Regular Retail Outlet and not a Rural Retail Outlet.

¶232

18. Answer to point No.4: What Order?

¶233

18.1. In the present case, the petitioner, knowing fully well that he is a Brahmin, could not have applied for RO, which is reserved for a scheduled caste category. The petitioner knows that for the location to be a Regular RO, it has to be located on a National Highway or a State Highway, since Bellare is not a Town Municipal Corporation. Any person interested in applying under the said advertisement ought to make available land abutting the National Highway or the State Highway.

¶234

18.2. The petitioner, by furnishing a land abutting a rural road, cannot claim that the advertisement is bad since, admittedly, there is a State Highway which runs to Bellare.

¶235

32 - NC: 2025:KHC:30158 WP No. 51613 of 2019

¶236

HC-KAR

¶237

18.3. The object of the petitioner apparently is clear inasmuch as the petitioner's father is stated to be running another petrol bunk within 100 meters in Bellare. And as such, it is with the intention not to have another competing petrol bunk that the petitioner has sought to delay the proceedings.

¶238

18.4. The petitioner, as indicated above, never furnished the scheduled caste certificate and did not make payment of the security deposit, knowing fully well that it is only after such payment that scrutiny of the documents and field verification will be completed. The petitioner, therefore, has abused the process of tender issued by the respondent, BPCL, and has also abused the process of this Court by filing a false, frivolous, vexatious petition to delay the proceedings.

¶239

18.5. Fortunately, the respondent-BPCL, by way of an interim order, permitted Respondent No.6, to go ahead and set up RO. Respondent No. 6 has

¶240

33 - NC: 2025:KHC:30158 WP No. 51613 of 2019

¶241

HC-KAR

¶242

complied with all the requirements, and the Retail Outlet of Respondent No.6 is running at the said location without any let or hindrance; any argument to the contrary by the petitioner, therefore, is unsustainable.

¶243

18.6. In view of the abuse of process of the Court caused by the petitioner, exemplary costs would have to be imposed on the petitioner. Hence, I pass the following:

¶244

ORDER

¶245

a) The petition is dismissed .

¶246

b) Exemplary cost of Rs.30,000/-, being the same as a security deposit, which would have been required to be paid by the petitioner, is directed to be paid by the petitioner to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶247

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶248

KTY

¶249

List No.: 19 Sl No.: 2

Jayashama v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

Jayashama v. the Union of India

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

Mohammad Mustak Vs the Deputy Commissioner Belagavi

Archana Onkar D/O Seturam Onkar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. v M Dayananda Kumar S/O v Mallikarjuna Vs the Secretary

Smt Munisanjeevamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Arjun Gyanappa Dhavali Vs Mr. Jagadish S/O Shankar Kamkar

Shivaputrappa Channappa Angadi Vs Chief Manging Director