The court affirmed that applicants must be provided an opportunity to rectify deficiencies in their land documentation before rejection of their dealership applications, emphasizing the principles of natural justice.

ORDER :

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

1. The petitioners are before this Court calling in question an intimation dated 23.10.2024 issued by the respondent - Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation” for short), rejecting the claim of the petitioner seeking allotment of a petroleum outlet on the score that the land that he has offered for establishment of a petroleum outlet abuts the National Highway – NH 548H.

2. Heard the learned counsel Shri Santosh R.Kolkar appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel Shri C.V. Angadi appearing for the respondents.

3. Facts in brief germane are as follows:

The respondent - Corporation issues an advertisement calling for applications for award of regular / rural retail outlet dealership in Karnataka State. The petitioners claiming to be the owners of certain parcels of land and on the plea that they come under Group-I category to get a regular outlet dealership apply in terms of the said advertisement. On scrutiny of the documents on 19.10.2023, the application of the petitioners was provisionally accepted and was declared to be provisionally selected by the respondent, as no other applicants had submitted any application under Group-I category. Therefore, the land of the petitioners or the application of the petitioners was provisionally processed and selected. The respondent is said to have directed the petitioner to remit amount of Rs. 40,000/- towards initial security and upload all documents specified in the intimation. The Land Evaluation Committee of the respondent Corporation then fixes a date to inspect the property of the petitioner. The Land Evaluation Committee is said to have found that the land offered to a portion of it was abutting the National Highway NH-548H and the dimension required was 30x30 meters for urban stretch and 35x35 metres for a rural stretch and therefore, the petitioner's land was not found to be eligible. It is this that has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on scrutiny of the documents the name of the petitioner figured at Sl.No.317. There was no indication in the said drawal of the eligible lands that it abutted the National Highway. As an illustration, the learned counsel would take this Court through Sl.Nos.327 and 470, where it was clearly indicated that it abutts the National Highway. He would also seek to place reliance upon the judgment rendered by Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.608 of 2021 to buttress his submission of reconsideration of the case of the petitioner.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation Shri C.V. Angadi would vehemently refute the submissions, contending that the petitioner cannot be shown any indulgence as a portion of his land to the tune of 1.7 acres does abut the National Highway NH-548H. Therefore, his land being not suitable, notwithstanding the fact that he was provisionally selected in Group-I category cannot be considered. He would submit that if this Court would show indulgence and approve the place, it would throw a danger to the vehicles movement and endanger the lives. Learned counsel would seek dismissal of the petition.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The petitioner in terms of the advertisement does apply along with all the documents. The documents are processed. The processing of the documents leads the petitioner to be selected provisionally subject to the land inspection comm