Disposed¶35

Smt Rajamma H R v. M/S Bharath Petroleum Corpn Ltd.

Karnataka HC1 Jun 2026WP/5427/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC, M.G.S. Kamal J., 01.06.2026; WP 5427/2022 (GM-RES); petitioner Rajamma H.R.; respondents Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.; challenge to e-mail dated 31.08.2021 (Annexure-F) refusing Group-1 category consideration for fuel retail outlet dealership allotment (application grouped under Group-3); petition under Articles 226 and 227; disposed of as infructuous because dealership already allotted to Ms. Asha M.S. by agreement dated 31.07.2023, retail outlet commissioned and product sold; memo dated 01.06.2026; no merits decided, no precedent engaged; useful only as background on BPCL dealership category disputes, not citable for any proposition on Group-1 criteria.

What did the court decide?

None; the petition was disposed of as infructuous without adjudication of, or any direction regarding, the Group-1 category claim. ¶35

Smt Rajamma H R Vs M/S Bharath Petroleum Corpn Ltd. — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the petition was disposed of as infructuous without adjudication of, or any direction regarding, the Group-1 category claim.

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the e-mail dated 31.08.2021 (Annexure-F) of respondent No.1 refusing to accept the petitioner's dealership application under the Group-1 category (and placing it under Group-3) ought to be quashed, and whether the respondents should be directed to consider the petitioner's application under the Group-1 category for allotment of dealership.

¶22

Court's answer

Since the dealership had already been allotted (to Ms. Asha M.S. under agreement dated 31.07.2023, with the retail outlet commissioned and the product being sold, a position not disputed by the petitioner's counsel), nothing survived for consideration in the writ petition, which was accordingly disposed of as having become infructuous. No ruling was made on the merits of the Group-1 versus Group-3 categorisation.

¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Bengaluru), M.G.S. Kamal, J. — Oral Order dated 01.06.2026 in Writ Petition No. 5427 of 2022 (GM-RES), filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by Smt Rajamma H.R. challenging the e-mail dated 31.08.2021 (Annexure-F) of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. refusing to accept her dealership application under the Group-1 category (the application having been categorised along with Group-3 applicants on the premise that she did not fulfil the Group-1 criteria). At the preliminary hearing, counsel for the respondent-Corporation filed a memo dated 01.06.2026 stating that the dealership had in the interim been allotted to Ms. Asha M.S. under an agreement dated 31.07.2023, that the retail outlet had been commissioned and the product sold ever since; learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute this. Holding that nothing survived for consideration, the Court disposed of the writ petition as having become infructuous. No finding was made on the merits of the Group-1 categorisation or the dealership selection criteria; no precedents were cited.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:25502 WP No. 5427 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 5427 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT RAJAMMA H.R., D/O LATE RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT HEGGAWADI VILLAGE HARAVE HOBLI CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571 312.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. VISWANATHA SETTY V. AND GOWHAR UNNISA, ADVOCATES)

¶13

AND:

¶14

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

¶15

M/S BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE

¶16

NO. 12/E, AND F, MAKER TOWERS CUFFE PARDE, POST BOX NO. 19949 MUMBAI - 400 005 REP BY ITS DIRECTOR.

¶17

M/S BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD., HEAD OF TERRITORY OFFICER BEHINDD FCI GOWDOWN B M SHREE NAGAR MEGAGALLY MYSURU - 570 016 REP BY ITS MANAGER.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. KUMAR N J.,ADVOCATE)

¶20

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:25502 WP No. 5427 of 2022

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE E-MAIL DATED 31.08.2021 ANNEXURE-F REFUSING TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER UNDER GROUP-1 CATEGORY AND FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER UNDER GROUP-1 CATEGORY BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

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

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the order/communication dated 31.08.2021 issued by the respondent No.1 categorizing his application along with Group3 applicants on the premise of petitioner not fulfilling the criteria provided for consideration of his application under Group- 1 category for the purpose of allotment of dealership.

¶27

2. Counsel for the respondent-Corporation files a memo dated 01.06.2026 contending that the petition has become infructuous inasmuch as the dealership has already been allotted to certain Ms.Asha M.S in terms of the agreement

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:25502 WP No. 5427 of 2022

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

dated 31.07.2023 and the Retail Outlet has already been

¶32

commissioned and the product is being sold ever since.

¶33

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute

¶34