Selection for petroleum outlets requires compliance with guidelines regarding land eligibility, specifically that the land must be non-agricultural at the time of application submission.

ORDER :

M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.

The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to prohibit respondents 1 and 2 from granting any petroleum outlet under Group-I Category to respondent No.7 and seeks a consequential direction of issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents/authorities to cancel dealership allotment in favour of respondent No.7 and in turn consider the petitioner for allotment of similar petroleum outlet.

2. Heard Sri D.R. Ravishankar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri B.Pramod, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2, Sri Shamanth Naik, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos. 3 to 6 and Sri Bipin Hegde, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -

On 17-10-2023 the 1^st respondent/Hindustan Petroleum Corporation (‘the Corporation’ for short) calls for applications from desirous and eligible participants for the purpose of selection for establishment of retail outlets of the Corporation. All the interested persons were called for bidding on 08-12-2023. It appears that respondent No.7 was declared as successful bidder for the location that forms the subject matter of the present lis. Therefore, his application dated 17-10-2023 comes to be accepted.

4. It is the averment in the petition that upon reviewing the documents submitted by the 7^th respondent it was found that the land offered for the purpose of establishment of fuel station was an agricultural land. At the time of submission of the application the 7^th respondent did not possess the land as mandated under the guidelines for such allotment. The only land the 7^th respondent had was on a long term lease of 20 years on the said agricultural land in terms of a lease deed dated 25-09-2023. On 24-01-2025, a communication emerges from the respondent/Corporation that it has scrutinized the documents or reviewed the documents submitted by the 7^th respondent, which sufficiently demonstrated that the land that was shown as the place for establishment of fuel station met the eligibility criteria under Group-I category in terms of the guidelines and all the allegations that the petitioner had made were found to be incorrect.

5. The petitioner again submitted representations to the Tahsildar, District Registrar and Sub-Registrar requesting clarification on the registration of agricultural land for commercial use, particularly regarding long term lease agreement for a period of 20 years. The representations remained unanswered. In the interregnum, the petitioner on coming to know that the 7^th respondent would be allotted the outlet, files the present writ petition on 07-02-2025. A coordinate Bench of this Court grants an interim order not to make any allotment of the retail outlet dealership to the 7^th respondent until further orders. The 7^th respondent then prefers an application seeking vacation of the interim order. During the pendency of the said application, the 7^th respondent files a memo that on 07-03-2025 the land in Sy.No.136/7 measuring 37 guntas which is submitted for usage of fuel station has been converted from agriculture to non- agricultural/commercial use for the purpose of putting up of a petrol bunk only. The matter, with the consent of parties, is heard at that stage.

6. The learned senior counsel Sri D.R. Ravishankar appearing for the petitioner would contend that the 7^th respondent has misrepresented about non-agricultural status of the subject land. The petitioner should have been declared a successful bidder, as the land mentioned by him, in his application is a legally converted land eligible to be used for commercial purpose. The petitioner’s land was converted long before the last date of filing of the application in terms of the notification issued by the 1^st respondent. He would, therefore, contend that the guidelines mandate that production of conversion order in the case of a long-term lease of any land of 19 year