Sri D G Kumar vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8196 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

                        PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                           AND

           THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

          WRIT APPEAL NO.1392/2021 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI.D.G.KUMAR
S/O SRI.GURUSIDDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
BUSINESS, R/AT ADLEGERE VILLAGE
MELEGERE POST, BELUR TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 115                   ... APPELLANT

     (BY SRI.CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY, ADV.)

AND:

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

2.     SRI.M VASANTH RAO
       THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
       HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED
       MANGALORE RETAIL REGIONAL OFFICE
       1ST FLOOR, DEO GRATIAS, BUILDING
       CHILIMBI, URVA STORES
       MANGALORE - 575 006              ...RESPONDENTS
                                2
      THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN
W.P.NO.51939/2019 DATED 08.09.2021 AND TO ALLOW THE
WRIT PETITION IN ITS ENTIRETY WITH COSTS.

    THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING :

                        JUDGMENT

Heard Sri Chandrakanth R. Goulay, learned

counsel for the appellant on the question of admission.

2. This intra-Court appeal has been filed

against the order dated 08.09.2021 by which the writ

petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

3. The facts giving rise to filing of this appeal

briefly stated are:

That an advertisement was issued by the

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter

referred to as 'the Corporation') on 10.10.2014 inviting

applications for establishment of a retail outlet at

Kengenahalli village. In response to the aforesaid

advertisement, the appellant submitted an application

on 08.12.2014. Thereafter on 10.08.2017 an offer of

allotment was issued to the appellant by the

Corporation. However, on 02.07.2018, the Corporation

issued an endorsement by which the proposal dated

10.08.2017 which was made to the appellant for

establishment of a retail outlet was cancelled on the

ground that there is ambiguity in the notification and

the proposed site where the retail outlet was established

is situate on a National High way and not on State High

way.

4. The appellant thereby submitted a

representation on 18.07.2018 to the Corporation. The

appellant thereafter filed writ petition viz.,

W.P.No.39488/2018 which was disposed of by a Bench

of this Court by an order dated 23.07.2019 with the

liberty to the Corporation to afford an opportunity of

hearing to the appellant. However, after hearing the

appellant, the Corporation by an order dated

06.09.2019 reiterated its decision to cancel the proposal

issued to the appellant.

5. The appellant challenged the said decision in

a writ petition which has been dismissed by the learned

Single Judge. In the aforesaid factual back ground, this

appeal has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated

that the offer which was made in favour of the appellant

has been cancelled at the instance of complainant.

However, it was submitted that the aforesaid

complainant was not impleaded in the writ petition. It

is also submitted that the appellant is entitled to set up

the petrol pump.

7. We have heard the submission made by

learned counsel for the appellant and perused the

records.

8. The offer issued in favour of the appellant

has been cancelled by communication dated 06.09.2019

by the Corporation. In the aforesaid communication,

two reasons have been assigned. It has been stated

that under the terms and conditions of the

advertisement the company had the right to withdraw

the advertisement. Secondly it has been stated that

inadvertently the advertised location had been

advertised as State Highway but the said outlet which

the Corporation wanted to establish was to be situated

on a National Highway.

9. Thus, valid and cogent reasons have been

assigned by the Corporation to recall the offer made to

the appellant. Even otherwise the appellant does not

have a legally enforceable right to seek allotment of a

retail outlet in his favour.

For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find

any ground to differ from the view taken by the learned

Single Judge. In the result, the appeal fails and the

same is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

akc/-