Karnataka High Court
Smt Nirupama K C vs The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... on 21 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:48253-DB
WA No. 1771 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1771 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. NIRUPAMA K.C.
W/O OF HEMANTH N
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/AT YALERMPURA, KOLALA HOBLI
KORTAGERE TALUK
TUMKUR - 572 129
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI MANMOHAN P.N., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI VINAY N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by 1. THE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM
SRIDEVI S CORPORATION LTD.
Location: A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE
High Court
of Karnataka NO.17, JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD
MUMBAI - 400 020
2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
L.P.G REGIONAL OFFICE
3 AND 4, WHITEFIELD ROAD
MAHADEVAPURA POST
BENGALURU - 560 048
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:48253-DB
WA No. 1771 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS
WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 31/07/2025
PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.12552/2024 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE
WRIT PETITION NO.12552/2024 FILED BY APPELLANT AND
ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. For the reasons stated in the application - I.A.1/2025, the
same is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
2. The appellant has filed a present appeal impugning an order
dated 31.07.2025 passed by the Learned Single Judge of this
Court in WP. No.12552/2024 (GM-RES) [impugned order].
3. The appellant had filed the said writ petition impugning the
communication dated 20.02.2024 issued by respondent No.2
NC: 2025:KHC:48253-DB
HC-KAR
rejecting the petitioner's application for LPG distribution agency.
The learned Single Judge found no fault in the decision of
respondents to reject the application on the ground that the
petitioner was ineligible in terms of the Unified Guidelines for
Selection of LPG Distributorship [hereafter 'guidelines'] for
awarding the LPG distributorship.
4. The relevant facts are that on 20.05.2023, the respondents
(hereafter collectively referred to as HPCL), invited applications for
award of LPG distributorship at Doddasagere, Tumkuru under
Open 'W' Category. The appellant submitted an online application
pursuant to the said notice. The appellant's application was
accepted and by a letter dated 17.11.2023, HPCL informed the
appellant that she was successful in the draw of lots conducted on
15.11.2023, for the award of the LPG dealership (Grameen) and
distributorship of HPCL, Doddasagere, Tumkuru. The appellant
was also called upon to deposit a sum of Rs.40,000/- as security
deposit and furnish the documents as required.
5. On examination of the documents, it was found that the land
offered by the appellant for running a showroom was not suitable in
terms of the guidelines. It is the appellant's case that in terms of the
NC: 2025:KHC:48253-DB
HC-KAR
guidelines, she is entitled to a onetime opportunity to furnish
alternate lands, if the land as offered was found to be not suitable.
It is also the case of the appellant that at the time of document
verification, she has submitted details of the alternate land for
running a godown and a showroom. The appellant also claims that
the land as furnished, met all the required conditions as specified in
the brochure for selection of LPG distributorship.
6. However, the petitioner's application was rejected on the
ground that the alternate land as offered by the appellant was held
by her by way of lease deed dated 21.11.2023 and was not a
property owned by her or her family. It was found that the lease
deed dated 21.11.2023, was after the appellant was successful in
the draw of lots.
7. The relevant eligibility conditions included in the guidelines
for award of LPG distributorship - as also set out in paragraph 3 of
the impugned order - is reproduced below:
"Opportunity to offer alternate land for Godown and/
or showroom
In case if the offered land for Godown and/ or offered
land for showroom by the selected candidate which is
shown in the application is found not meeting the
NC: 2025:KHC:48253-DB
HC-KAR
eligibility conditions/ requirements as stipulated in the
advertisement/ brochure/ application at the verification
(FVC) stage, then one time option of offering the
alternate land will be available to all the selected
candidate, by providing 15 days' time period, and in
case any alternate land is offered by selected candidate,
the same is to be owned by the applicant/member of the
'Family Unit'/ parents (includes Step Father/Step
Mother), grandparents (both maternal and paternal),
Brother/ Sister (including Step Brother & Step Sister),
Son/Daughter (including Step Son/Step Daughter), Son-
in-law/ Daughter in-law; of the applicant or the spouse(in
the case of married applicant) as on the last date for
submission of application as specified either in the
advertisement or corrigendum if any. The selected
candidate will be required to provide a declaration along
with the offer of the alternate land confirming that the
land now being offered by the selected candidate has
not been offered by any other applicant in the same
advertisement for that particular location.
In case, the selected candidate does not offer any
alternate land meeting the eligibility
conditions/requirements as per above, then another
opportunity of 15 days will be provided. If still the
candidate does not offer any alternate land, then the
candidature will be rejected. "
8. A plain reading of the afore-quoted eligibility conditions
indicate that in the event the land offered for godown and/or
showroom is found to be not in compliance with the eligibility
conditions/legal requirements as stipulated in the advertisement or
brochure inviting applications, the selected candidate would be
provided with an one time option to offer an alternate land within a
NC: 2025:KHC:48253-DB
HC-KAR
period of fifteen days. However, there are certain attendant
conditions in respect to the alternate lands. First, that the land is
required to be owned by the applicant/member of the 'Family Unit'.
And second, that the land should be owned as on the last date of
submission of the application as specified either in the
advertisement or corrigendum, if any.
9. In the present case, there is no dispute that the alternate
land as offered by the appellant are neither owned by the appellant
nor by any of her family members. Second, that the lease by virtue
of which the appellant claims leasehold interest in the alternate
land was executed on 21.11.2023. Thus, on the last date of making
an application, the appellant had no interest in the alternate land
offered by her.
10. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is apparent that the
appellant does not satisfy the conditions as set out in the guidelines
as noted above.
11. We also note that the appellant has not raised any challenge
to the aforementioned eligibility conditions as set out in the
guidelines.
NC: 2025:KHC:48253-DB
HC-KAR
12. In view of the above, we find no infirmity with the decision of
the learned Single Judge concurring with the view of HPCL that the
petitioner did not satisfy the eligibility criteria.
13. The appeal is unmerited and accordingly dismissed.
14. Pending application also stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
SD
