Karnataka High Court
Vishwanath vs The Cheif Controller Of Explosive on 2 August, 2024
Author: H.P. Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10921
WP No. 108207 of 2016
C/W WP No. 103027 of 2014
WP No. 112520 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 108207 OF 2016 (GM-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 103027 OF 2014
WRIT PETITION NO. 112520 OF 2014
IN WP NO 108207 OF 2016
BETWEEN
VISHWANATH S/O. B. HOSANGADI,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
RESIDING AT SANGANAL,
TQ: YALBURGA, DISTRICT: KOPPAL.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. H.M. DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVE,
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY,
GIRIJA A 2ND FLOOR, CITY CENTRE,
BYAHATTI OPPOSITE HOTEL ROOPA,
Location: HIGH
BALMUTTA ROAD, MANGALORE.
COURT OF
KARANTAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH 2. THE SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
NEW DELHI-110 011.
3. BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.,
NO.39, ROAD NO.3, BELUR INDUSTRIAL AREA,
DHARWAD-586011.
4. THE CHAIRMAN,
TOWN PLANNING AUTHORITY,
KUSTAGI TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10921
WP No. 108207 of 2016
C/W WP No. 103027 of 2014
WP No. 112520 of 2014
5. THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
KUSTAGI, KOPPAL DISTRICT.
6. SRI. PRASHANT PATIL
S/O. JAGADISH PATIL,
NEAR I.B. MAIN ROAD, JALAHALLI,
TQ: DEVADURGA, DISTRICT: RAICHUR,
STATE: KARNATAKA
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C.V. ANGADI, ADV. FOR R1-R5;
SRI. S.N. BANAKAR, ADV. FOR C/R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT
ANNEXURE-E, DATED:11.05.2016 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY CHIEF
CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND
INDUSTRY, OPPOSITE HOSTEL ROOPA, BALAMATTA ROAD,
MANGALORE ON BEARING NO. PRIOR APPROVAL
NO.A/G/SM/KA/06/258 (G43061); DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2,
SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-110001, TO CONSIDER
OBJECTIONS VIDE ANNEXURE-G DATED:23.09.2016 AND EXERCISE
ITS SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION AND TO TAKE APPROPRIATE
ACTION AGAINST THE RESPONDENT; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT
NO.4 THE TOWN PLANNING AUTHORITY, KUSTAGI TALUK, TO
CONSIDER THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER
DATED:23.09.2016, VIDE ANNEXURE-J, DATED:23.09.2016 AND
PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.5, THE
CHIEF OFFICER, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, KUSTAGI IN KOPPAL
DISTRICT TO CONSIDER THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE
PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER,
DATED:23.09.2016.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10921
WP No. 108207 of 2016
C/W WP No. 103027 of 2014
WP No. 112520 of 2014
IN WP NO 103027 OF 2014
BETWEEN
VISHWANATH B. HOSANGADI,
S/O. BASAVALINGAPPA HOSANGADI,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/O. SANGANAHAL, YALLAPUR TALUK,
KOPPAL DISTRICT, PIN: 583236.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. H.M. DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.,
BY ITS TERRITORIAL MANAGER (LPG),
P.B. NO.39, ROAD NO.3,
323-333, BELUR INDUSTRIAL AREA,
DHARWAD-580011.
2. SRI. PRASHANT PATIL,
S/O. JAGADISH PATIL,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. NEAR I.B. MAIN ROAD,
JALAHALLI, TQ: DEVADURGA,
DISTRICT: RAICHUR-584116.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C.V. ANGADI, ADV. FOR R1;
SRI. S.N. BANAKAR, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT IN NO.
DWD/LPG/KUSHTAGI/REJ DATED 23.12.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-D
AND ETC.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10921
WP No. 108207 of 2016
C/W WP No. 103027 of 2014
WP No. 112520 of 2014
IN WP NO 112520 OF 2014
BETWEEN
VISHWANATH
S/O. B. HOSANGADI,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
RESIDING AT AANGANAHAL,
TQ: YALBURGA, DISTRICT: KOPPAL.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. H.M. DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.,
BY ITS TERRITORIAL MANAGER (LPG),
P.B.NO.39, ROAD NO.3,
323-333, BELUR INDUSTRIAL AREA,
DHARWAD-580011.
2. THE DEPUTY MANAGER SALES (RETAIL)
LPG HUBLI, RAYAPUR,
TQ: DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD.
3. PRASHANTH G. PATEL,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
RESIDING AT DEVADURGA,
TQ: YADAGIR, DISTRICT: YADAGIR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C.V. ANGADI, ADV. FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. S.N. BANAKAR, ADV. FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE
ANNEXURE-J DATED 17.02.2014 ISSUED BY 1ST AND 2ND
RESPONDENT I.E. THE TERRITORY MANAGER BHARATH PETROLEUM
COPRORATION LTD., BELUR-DISTRICT DHARWAD AND THE DEPUTY
MANAGER SALES (RETAIL) LPG HUBLI UNDER ORDER NO.NIL.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 29.07.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10921
WP No. 108207 of 2016
C/W WP No. 103027 of 2014
WP No. 112520 of 2014
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH)
1. These petitions are filed by the petitioners invoking
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue writ of certiorari and also
sought for the relief of mandamus.
2. The petitioner in all these petitions is one and the
same. W.P.No.103027/2014 is filed praying this
Court to quash the impugned order passed by the
respondent in No.DWD/LPG/Kushtagi/REJ dated
23.12.2013 vide Annexure-D and pass such other
order or orders as may be just and necessary in the
circumstances of the case.
3. W.P.No.108207/2016 is filed praying this Court to
issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned order at Annexure-E dated 11.05.2016
issued by the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives,
Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Opposite Hotel
Roopa, Balamatta Road, Mangalore, bearing Prior
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10921
WP No. 108207 of 2016
C/W WP No. 103027 of 2014
WP No. 112520 of 2014
Approval No.A/G/SM/KA/06/258 (G43061); and also
sought a direction against respondent No.2 ,
Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and Industry,
Government of India, New Delhi - 110 001, to
consider the objections vide Annexure-G dated
23.09.2016 and exercise its supervisory jurisdiction
and to take appropriate action against the
respondent; so also direct the respondent No.4 - the
Town Planning Authority, Kustagi Taluk, to consider
the objections filed by the petitioner dated
23.09.2016 vide Annexure-J dated 23.09.2016 and
pass appropriate order; so also sought the direction
against respondent No.5, the Chief Officer, City
Municipal Council, Kustagi in Koppal District to
consider the objections filed by the petitioner vide
Annexure-K and to pass appropriate order dated
23.09.2016.
4. In W.P.No.112520/2014 is filed praying this Court to
issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10921
WP No. 108207 of 2016
C/W WP No. 103027 of 2014
WP No. 112520 of 2014
impugned order vide Annexure-J dated 17.02.2014
issued by the 1st and 2nd respondent i.e., the
Territory Manager, Bharath Petroleum Corporation
Ltd., Belur, District Dharwad and the Deputy
Manager Sales (Retail) LPG, Hubballi, and any other
order or direction as deemed fit in the circumstances
of the case.
5. The respondent in W.P.No.103027/2014 had called
for application for LPG Distributorship on various
towns including Kushtagi Town on 05.09.2012 and
the last date for submitting the applications for LPG
Distributorship is fixed as 05.10.2012 and
subsequently, the last date for filing the application
was extended up to 12.10.2012 by issuing a
corrigendum. In pursuance of the said inviting of
applications, the petitioner herein submitted the
application for LPG Distributorship and also he was
informed that he was qualified for drawing of
selection for the LPG Distributorship vide letter dated
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10921
WP No. 108207 of 2016
C/W WP No. 103027 of 2014
WP No. 112520 of 2014
07.06.2013. The respondent wrote a letter dated
23.12.2013 to the petitioner rejecting the LPG
Distributorship and hence the petitioner filed the writ
petition seeking the relief of quashing of Annexure-D.
6. In W.P.No.112520/2014, the petitioner also
reiterated the grounds urged in the other writ
petitions giving all details. It is contended that,
surprisingly, the respondent Corporation rejected the
application of the petitioner on wrong ground. The
petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.103027/2013 for
quashing the impugned order dated 23.12.2013 and
interim order was granted in the said writ petition,
holding that the selection would be made subject to
the result of the writ petition. On 17.02.2014, the
respondent selected LPG Distributorships illegally,
which fact came to the knowledge of the petitioner
when the 2nd respondent filed an impleading
application in the said petition, which is pending
before this Court. Hence as the selection of 2nd
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10921
WP No. 108207 of 2016
C/W WP No. 103027 of 2014
WP No. 112520 of 2014
respondent being illegal, petitioner has filed the
petition urging several grounds in the writ petition.
7. In W.P.No.108207/2016, it is contended that, on an
application filed by the petitioner for allotment of LPG
Distributorship of Kustagi Taluka, the petitioner was
selected for allotment by draw method and selection
of the petitioner was wrongly rejected by the Bharath
Petroleum Corporation and re-iterated with regard to
challenging the same in other connected writ
petitions. The suit filed by the petitioner came to be
dismissed. During the pendency of the writ petition,
the 3rd respondent issued a letter of indent to the 6th
respondent without verifying the location of the
proposed construction of Gas Godown and without
bringing to the knowledge of the Court in
W.P.No.10302/2014 and 112520/2014 circumventing
the circumstances in favour of the 6th respondent and
collusively managed to get an explosive license from
the first respondent on 11.05.2016 without
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10921
WP No. 108207 of 2016
C/W WP No. 103027 of 2014
WP No. 112520 of 2014
verification and confirmation of the property
proposed for gas godown which license is illegal. On
coming to know that, 3rd respondent issued a letter
of indent and managed to get the explosive licence
to the 6th respondent collusively without any
verification of the location of the proposed Gas
Godown, which is illegal and as the letter of intent is
illegal for violation of the Rules of the respondent
Corporation and the Karnataka Country and Town
Planning Act, the petitioner has now filed this writ
petition for quashing of the license and to consider
the objection of the petitioner filed by the petitioner
and before the respondent authorities.
8. Having taken note of the pleadings made in all these
writ petitions, the dispute is in respect of inviting of
applications and allotment of dealership. It is
contended that the petitioner was eligible for LPG
Distributorship and the same was now rejected and
also granting of licence to other persons is
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10921
WP No. 108207 of 2016
C/W WP No. 103027 of 2014
WP No. 112520 of 2014
challenged before this Court and sought for
directions to consider the objection statement filed
by the petitioner herein.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner in
all these writ petitions would vehemently contended
that;
9.1. In spite of issuing a letter dated 07.06.2013
vide Annexure-C in W.P.No.102037/2014,
stating that the petitioner is eligible for
dealership, again issuing a letter dated
23.12.2013 vide Annexure-D, stating that he is
not eligible, is erroneous. The reasons
assigned in Annexure-D are not by considering
the material on record.
9.2. The learned counsel relied upon the document
of application and also the sale deed which has
been produced before the concerned authority
for consideration of his dealership and also
produced the brochure and guidelines for
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10921
WP No. 108207 of 2016
C/W WP No. 103027 of 2014
WP No. 112520 of 2014
selection of regular LPG Distributorship. The
counsel also brought to notice of this Court the
eligibility criteria and also contended that the
Procedure for Receipt of Application as
contemplated in Clause 9.5 and also brought to
the notice of this Court the Procedure for Draw
under clause 10 and Condition for Re-Draw in
terms of Clause 13. It is also contended with
regard to the misrepresentation and
misinformation as contemplated in Clause 22 of
the said brochure.
9.3. The counsel referring to Annexure-C dated
07.06.2013, brought to the notice of this Court
that, when the petitioner is held qualified, the
respondent Corporation erroneously passed an
order vide Annexure-D. The reasons assigned
are that, the registered sale agreement for the
land in Survey No.78/3/1 is executed on
04.10.2012 and thereafter registered the sale
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10921
WP No. 108207 of 2016
C/W WP No. 103027 of 2014
WP No. 112520 of 2014
deed was executed on 27.06.2013, whereas the
date of application is 05.10.2012 and the
petitioner does not have a clear title on the land
in above survey number on the date of
application; the lands offered for the purpose
of LPG Godown are not found to have clear title
deed in the name of the petitioner as on the
date of application. The counsel would submit
that the reasoning assigned is not correct.
Hence he prays for allowing of the writ petitions
and to quash Annexure-D as well as allotment
made in favour of other respondents.
10. In all these writ petitions, statement of objections
are filed by the respondent Corporation contending
that;
10.1. The respondent issued paper publication
inviting applications for grant of LPG
distributorship for the location of Kushtagi Town
and paper publication was published on
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10921
WP No. 108207 of 2016
C/W WP No. 103027 of 2014
WP No. 112520 of 2014
05.09.2012 in Vijay Karnataka, Prajavani and
Times of India. The last date to submit
application was fixed on 05.10.2012 and the
same was extended until 12.10.2012. It is also
contended that the application of the petitioner
is dated 05.10.2012 as per Annexure-R1.
According to the guidelines for selection, the
candidate should own a plot of land adequate
size for construction of Godown as on the date
of application. It is also contended that the
brochure which has been produced as
Annexure-B includes the mandatory
requirement of owning a plot. That means,
'own' means, having ownership title of the
property or in the name of the applicant/family
member and registered lease agreement for
minimum of 15 years.
10.2. The sale deed in respect of Survey
No.103/1/hissa No.5 measuring 25 guntas on
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10921
WP No. 108207 of 2016
C/W WP No. 103027 of 2014
WP No. 112520 of 2014
11.10.2012 is also produced and the same is
marked as Annexure-R2. The application Form
is dated 05.10.2012, but he had purchasaed
the land on 11.10.2022 and as on the date of
the application, he was not the owner.
10.3. In respect of other survey numbers, only he
was having sale agreement dated 04.10.2013
and the same is produced as Annexure-R-3. He
was not the owner of the land as on the date of
application and he was neither the owner nor
the lease holder, but he was only an agreement
holder.
10.4. Having taken note of this fact into consideration
and undertaking that the information given is
true and correct, it was held that the petitioner
was eligible for the dealership. But later on,
when it comes to the knowledge on verification
of true facts that he was not eligible, the
respondent Corporation passed the order of
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10921
WP No. 108207 of 2016
C/W WP No. 103027 of 2014
WP No. 112520 of 2014
rejection that he is not eligible and hence not
committed any error.
10.5. Regarding the other reliefs sought for in other
writ petitions, as the same are only
consequential acts after the rejection and
dealership licence was given to the other
respondents, the petitioner is not entitled for
any relief.
11. Having considered the pleadings and statement of
objections of both the petitioner and also the
respondents, there is no dispute with regard to the
petitioner making an application for LPG
Distributorship licence. It is also not in dispute that,
at the first instance the respondent Corporation came
to the conclusion that the petitioner is eligible for
dealership, but not selected him. It is also pertinent
to note that, as per Annexure-D, while coming to the
conclusion that the petitioner is not eligible, reasons
are assigned. There is no dispute with regard to the
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10921
WP No. 108207 of 2016
C/W WP No. 103027 of 2014
WP No. 112520 of 2014
date of application is concerned and also no dispute
with regard to the petitioner purchasing 25 guntas of
the land on 11.10.2012 i.e., subsequent to the date
of application. It is also not in dispute that a
corrigendum was issued for extension of time. It is
also not in dispute that, in respect of other survey
numbers is concerned, the petitioner was having only
a sale agreement. The respondent while rejecting
the same held that, in terms of the guidelines, the
applicant must be the owner of the property as on
the date of application as well as he must be having
a registered lease deed for a period of 15 years. In
this case, it is not the question of having the lease
deed. But the petitioner claims that he was the
owner in respect of one property, i.e., the sale deed
dated 11.10.2012. It is pertinent to note that, the
petitioner had purchased the property only on
11.10.2012 and first date fixed for last date of
application is 05.10.2012. It is also pertinent to note
that, for inviting the application, publication was
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10921
WP No. 108207 of 2016
C/W WP No. 103027 of 2014
WP No. 112520 of 2014
made in the paper before a month of submitting
itself and thereafter the petitioner started the
process of acquiring the land and that too only as an
agreement holder and not the owner as on the date
of filing of the application in respect of other survey
number.
12. All these details are taken note of and Annexure-D
was issued. When the reasons are assigned that the
petitioner did not comply with the guidelines and the
same was rejected in terms of Annexure-D and when
such being the case, filing of other writ petitions
questioning the dealership granted in favour of the
eligible candidate i.e., respondent No.2, does not
arise. First of all, the petitioner has not fulfilled the
requirements as per the guidelines of the respondent
Corporation and such being the case, when reasons
are assigned, the very contention of the petitioner
counsel cannot be accepted.
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10921
WP No. 108207 of 2016
C/W WP No. 103027 of 2014
WP No. 112520 of 2014
13. Learned counsel for the respondent Corporation has
also categorically contended that, the respondent
Corporation made field verification and on
verification only, came to know about the same and
though in terms of Annexure-C dated 07.06.2013,
held that the petitioner is eligible, in terms of
Annexure-D, after considering the guidelines,
rejected the same on 23.12.2023 and not committed
any error.
13.1. In support of his arguments, learned counsel
has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Shiv Kant Yadav Vs.
Indian Oil Corporation and Another,
reported in (2007) 4 SCC 410 and brought to
the notice of this Court the principles laid down
in the said judgment and vehemently
contended that, in this judgment, discussion
regarding suppression of material information
by the applicant and also the applicant
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10921
WP No. 108207 of 2016
C/W WP No. 103027 of 2014
WP No. 112520 of 2014
undertaking that all the particulates supplied to
be true and correct. The Hon'ble Apex Court
also held that, in view of the undertaking that,
if any factual misstatement or declaration is
made, the cancellation of allotment is valid.
The counsel referring this judgment would
contend that, the factual misstatement or the
declaration made is not in terms of the
guidelines and hence the judgment is aptly
applicable to the case on hand.
13.2. The learned counsel also relied on the judgment
of this Court passed in W.P.No.81400/2013
dated 16.09.2014 (Sri. Basavaraj Vs. Indian
Oil Corporation Ltd, and another), wherein,
in paragraph No.8, it is discussed in detail
regarding a mis-declaration and the same was
contrary to what the petitioner there has
declared in the application dated 19.05.2012.
The counsel referring this judgment also
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10921
WP No. 108207 of 2016
C/W WP No. 103027 of 2014
WP No. 112520 of 2014
brought to the notice of this Court the that, if
the petitioner has given wrong conclusion or
suppressed any information or fact, it would be
a disqualification for being considered for the
dealership.
13.3. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of
this Court dated 09.07.2014, passed in
W.P.No.82901/2013 (Shridevi R. Snnakki Vs.
M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited),
wherein also this Court discussed the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to supra and
in paragraph No.7 held that, if the facts of the
case being identical to the one considered by
the Hon'ble Apex Court, there is neither any
arbitrariness nor illegality committed by the
respondent in the matter of issuance of
Annexures D and E; There being
misdeclaration by the petitioner in her petition
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10921
WP No. 108207 of 2016
C/W WP No. 103027 of 2014
WP No. 112520 of 2014
and there is no scope to interfere with
Annexures D and E.
13.4. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bharat
Petroleum Corporation Lt., and Ors. Vs.
Swapnil Singh, in Civil Appeal No.6928-6929
of 2015, wherein also there is discussion with
regard to the location offered for construction
of godown and also taken note of the date of
application and documents which has been
offered and during the process of final
verification, it came to the knowledge of the
appellants that in fact respondents had entered
into lease agreement on 20.12.2012, for a
period of 15 years i.e., subsequent to the date
of application fixed. In the similar set of facts,
the Hon'ble Apex Court did not consider the
claim made by the applicant and came to the
conclusion that the respondent therein was not
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10921
WP No. 108207 of 2016
C/W WP No. 103027 of 2014
WP No. 112520 of 2014
eligible on the date of application i.e., on
13.09.2011. Counsel referring this judgment
also vehemently contended that the same is
squarely applicable to the facts of the case on
hand.
14. Learned counsel Sri. S. N. Banakar, who appears for
the successful dealership licensee relied upon the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated
09.04.2013, in Writ Appeal No.4677/1999 connected
with Writ Petition No.17991/1999, and brought to
the notice of this Court paragraph No.12 of the
judgment, wherein a discussion is made that it is
necessary to mention that law permits a litigant to
fight a litigation and seek redressal in respect of his
claim in one forum and only in one forum and litigant
cannot be allowed to proceed with two parallel
proceedings and seek redressal. Learned counsel
referring this judgment would vehemently contended
that the petitioner has filed three petitions without
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10921
WP No. 108207 of 2016
C/W WP No. 103027 of 2014
WP No. 112520 of 2014
any reason and initiated false litigation against the
respondent, who is the successful dealer and he had
complied all the requirement and cannot be termed
as the same is a collusive allotment.
15. Having considered the principles laid down in the
judgment referred supra by the counsel for the
respondents and also considering the factual aspects
of the case on hand, this Court comes to the
conclusion that the documents which have been
placed by the petitioner are subsequent to the date
of application and also only having the sale
agreement in respect of the property and not having
his own title. No doubt sale deed produced is dated
11.10.2012 and the same is obtained to the extent of
25 guntas and his title was not clear and hence
rejection was made in terms of Annexure D. When
such being the case, the principles laid down in the
judgments referred supra are aptly applicable to the
case on hand. The petitioner made efforts to get the
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10921
WP No. 108207 of 2016
C/W WP No. 103027 of 2014
WP No. 112520 of 2014
dealership only after the publication, that too not
having his title as on the date of application. When
such being the case, I do not find any ground to
quash Annexure-D and the same is based on the
material on record and also in terms of the guidelines
for allotment of dealership. The other reliefs sought
in other writ petitions are also consequential on
account of rejection of the dealership. When the
very dealership eligibility is not found, the
respondent Corporation passed Annexure-D on
verification only. The petitioner has not made out
any grounds for issue of writ of certiorari or grant
any other relief as sought for in other petitions also.
16. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
All the writ petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P. SANDESH)
JUDGE
gab/CT-MCK
