Disposed¶54

Mr. H K Srinath, v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Karnataka HC20 Jul 2026WP/23589/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Land-linked dealership cancelled; BPCL Mysore retail outlet; lease deed dated 14.02.2005 at concessional rent; Dispensing Pump and Selling License Agreement; endorsement 21.06.2023 MYS/RET/MYLARA/2023; termination notice 20.09.2013 BLR.RET.MYLARA; communication 08.07.2017; liberty to seek eviction of Corporation; Rahul Yadav v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (2015) 9 SCC 447 relied by respondent counsel; Articles 226 and 227; Karnataka HC; Justice M.G.S. Kamal; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to initiate action/proceedings as contemplated under law, if so advised and desired, including proceedings seeking eviction of respondent No.1-Corporation; no substantive relief granted on the challenged endorsement, termination notice or communications. ¶54

Mr. H K Srinath, Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶54

Issue for consideration

Whether the endorsement/letter dated 21.06.2023 bearing No. MYS/RET/MYLARA/2023 issued by respondent No.1 (Annexure-A), together with the termination notice dated 20.09.2013 (Annexure-D) and the communication dated 08.07.2017 (Annexure-S), should be quashed. +2 more

¶35

Ratio / Principle

The petition is disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to initiate action as contemplated under law, if so advised and desired (per paragraph 5, including liberty to initiate proceedings in accordance with law seeking eviction of respondent No.1-Corporation). The court did not adjudicate the merits of the challenge to the cancellation of the dealership or the lease questions.

¶54

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

M.G.S. Kamal, J.: Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the proprietor of Sri Mylaralingeshwara Service Station, Mysore, who had leased his land (Site No.P/16, Chamaraja Mohalla, Mysore) to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. under a lease deed dated 14.02.2005 entered under the Land Linked Dealership scheme at a concessional rent on the assurance of a land-linked dealership. He challenged the endorsement/letter dated 21.06.2023 (Annexure-A) cancelling his dealership authorization, the termination notice dated 20.09.2013 (Annexure-D) and the communication dated 08.07.2017 (Annexure-S), and sought restoration of the retail outlet dealership licence under the Dispensing Pump and Selling License Agreement dated 14.02.2005 or, alternatively, determination of the lease. The Corporation contended that grant of lease and grant of dealership are distinct, relying on Rahul Yadav v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (2015) 9 SCC 447. Without entering upon the merits, the Court disposed of the petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings under law, including eviction of the Corporation.

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

NC: 2026:KHC:37095 WP No. 23589 of 2023

¶4

CNR: KAHC010542622023

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶7

BEFORE

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 23589 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MR. H.K. SRINATH S/O S. KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS PROPRIETOR SRI. MYLARALINGESHWARA SERVICE STATION R/AT NO. 918, 4^TH MAIN NEW KANTHARAJ URS ROAD SARASWATHIPURAM MYSORE-570 009

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SHARATH GOWDA G.B, ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE INDIA COMPANIES ACT, 1956 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING HAVING ITS REGISTRED OFFICE AT BHARAT BHAVAN, 4 AND 6 CURRIMBHOY ROAD BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI-400 066 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR (MARKETING)

¶16

THE STATE HEAD RETAIL (KARNATAKA AND KERALA)

¶17

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:37095 WP No. 23589 of 2023

¶20

CNR: KAHC010542622023

¶21

BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD DU-PARC TRINITY, 7^TH FLOOR, 17 M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001

¶22

THE TERRITORY MANAGER(RETAIL) BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD MYSURU TERRITORY, RETAIL BEHIND FCT GODWON, METAGALLI MYSURU-570 016

¶23

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, SHASTRI BHAVAN NEW DELHI-110 010

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. KUMAR N.J, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. CHARAN KUMAR K.V, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT /LETTER DTD 21.06.2023 BEARING NO. MYS/RET/MYLARA/2023 ISSUED BY THE R-1 AT ANNX-A AND QUASHING THE TERMINATION NOTICE /ORDER DTD 20.09.2013 BEARING REFERENCE BLR.RET.MYLARA. ISSUED BY THE R-3 AT ANNX-'D' AND ETC.

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶29

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:37095 WP No. 23589 of 2023

¶32

CNR: KAHC010542622023

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

1. Petitioner, who was the owner of vacant land bearing Site No.P/16, situated on Saraswathipuram to Nachi Koppal Layout, I Stage, Vishwa Manav Road, Chamaraja Mohalla, Mysore and who was also allotted land-linked dealership by the respondent No.1-Corporation is before this Court seeking following reliefs:

¶35

'' a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ/s or direction or order quashing the endorsement/letter dated 21.06.2023 bearing No.MYS/RET/MYLARA/2023, Issued by the 1st respondent at Annexure-A;

¶36

b) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ/s or direction or order quashing the termination notice/order dated 20.09.2013 bearing reference: BLR:RET:MYLARA, issued by the 3^rd respondent at Annexure-D

¶37

c) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ/s or direction or order quashing the communication dated 08.07.2017 bearing reference: MYS/RET/ MYLARA, issued by the 3rd respondent at Annexure-S;

¶38

d) Issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to restore the retail outlet dealership license issued under the Dispensing Pump and Selling License Agreement dated 14.02.2005 till the completion of the term; OR alternatively;

¶39

e) Issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to determine the lease of the land belonging to the petitioner under the lease Deed dated 14.02.2005 entered into between the petitioner and 1st respondent under the Land Linked Dealership scheme at Annexure-B; and

¶40

f) Pass such any other order or relief as this Hon'ble court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, to serve the interest of justice and equity.''

¶41

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:37095 WP No. 23589 of 2023

¶44

CNR: KAHC010542622023

¶45

2. Sri. Sharath Gowda G.B., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorization which was issued in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled leaving petitioner high and dry, inasmuch as the petitioner had agreed to grant the lease in respect of his property in terms of lease agreement dated 14.02.2005 as per Annexure-C on a highly concessional rate of rents, only on a specific and categorical assurance and representation made by respondent No.1Corporation, that the land-linked dealership would be allotted to the petitioner. Now that the said land-linked dealership has been cancelled and the said dealership has been assigned to some third party, that the petitioner, who had granted the lease in favour of the respondent No.1Corporation at a concessional rate is facing acute financial difficulties. Hence, the petition.

¶46

3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1-Corporation, on the other hand, submits that the grant of lease and grant of authorization are two different things and they have no bearing with one another. The cancellation of authorization of dealership which was granted to the petitioner is purely

¶47

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC:37095 WP No. 23589 of 2023

¶50

CNR: KAHC010542622023

¶51

on commercial terms and has got nothing to do with the grant of lease or the fixation of rentals.

¶52

4 He also relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Rahul Yadav and others Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., and others¹ to submit that the grant of lease and dealership are two different things and consequences of cancellation of dealership and termination of the lease has to be adverted to and adjudicated independently.

¶53

5. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner be reserved with the liberty to initiate proceedings in accordance with law seeking eviction of the respondent No.1-Corporation.

¶54

6. Petition is disposed of . Reserving liberty to the petitioner to initiate action as contemplated under law, if so advised and desired.

¶55

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶56

RL/-

¶57

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

¶58

1 (2015) 9 SCC 447

Mr. H K Srinath, v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. H K Srinath, v. Bharat 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 Ramanatha Agencies Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. Transit Surveys Vs Union of India

Sri. Swamy Vs the State of Karnataka

R Chalimeswamy Vs State of Karnataka

R Jeevith Vs Mahila Co. Operative Bank

The Secretary Chowdeshwari Cotton Handloom Weavers Co. Operative Society Limited Vs State of Karnataka