Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 6537
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
N. V. ANJARIA, CJ, M.I.ARUN, J
THE DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES HEAD – Appellant
Versus
K SUDHAMANI – Respondent
WA 1800 of 2024
The court upheld that no misrepresentation occurred in the application for a petrol bunk dealership, affirming the learned Single Judge's ruling.
Headnote:(A) Writ Jurisdiction - Principles of Natural Justice - The petitioner applied for a Retail Outlet Dealership and was selected; however, the allotment was canceled based on allegations of concealment of information regarding leasehold rights. The learned Single Judge found no misrepresentation and allowed the writ petition. (Paras 7, 8, 10)
(B) Contractual Obligations - The terms of the contract stipulate that any misrepresentation or concealment of facts can lead to rejection of the application or termination of the dealership. The court upheld the learned Single Judge's decision, finding no evidence of concealment. (Paras 8, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner applied for a petrol bunk dealership, was selected, and later requested a change of land for the outlet. A complaint led to the cancellation of the allotment, alleging concealment of leasehold rights. The learned Single Judge ruled in favor of the petitioner, stating no misrepresentation occurred.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not conceal any facts regarding the leasehold rights and upheld the learned Single Judge's order.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner concealed information regarding leasehold rights and if the cancellation of the allotment was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that there was no evidence of misrepresentation by the petitioner, affirming the learned Single Judge's decision to allow the writ petition.
Result: Writ appeal dismissed.
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN)
Aggrieved by the order dated 13.09.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.21754 of 2024, the second respondent therein has preferred this writ appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein as per their status in the writ petition.
3. The first respondent issued a notification for the allotment of a Retail Outlet Dealership (Petrol Bunk). The petitioner submitted an application for the allotment of the Retail Outlet Dealership (Petrol Bunk) by offering land in Property No.88/2 of Panthanahalli Village, Kyasamballi Hobli, KGF Taluk. The petitioner was selected in the draw of lots for the allotment of the Retail Outlet Dealership (Petrol Bunk) held on 20.07.2022.
4. The petitioner entered into a lease deed for Sy.No.52/1 of Mittakothur Village, Kyasamballi Hobli, KGF Taluk, Kolar, on 15.06.2023, and submitted a representation to the first respondent on 07.07.2023 to change the land from Sy.No.88/2 to Sy.No.52/1. Subsequently, the second respondent accepted the petitioner’s request and issued a letter of intent dated 24.08.2023. At the instance of the respondent-Corporation, the petitioner received a necessary No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the competent authority for establishing the retail outlet petrol bunk.
5. Given these circumstances, a complaint lodged by one Chinnaswamy on 20.11.2023 resulted in an impugned communication canceling the allotment made in favor of the petitioner. This was based on allegation that the petitioner concealed the surrender of leasehold rights concerning Property No. 88/2, which was earlier offered for the allotment of the petrol bunk.
6. Aggrieved by the said issuance of notice for cancellation of petrol bunk, the petitioner preferred writ petition No.21754 of 2024.
7. The learned Single Judge on the ground that the petitioner did not misrepresent, suppress, or provide incorrect or false statements in the application for the allotment of petrol bunk and has requested for change of address for installation of the petrol bunk in accordance with law and also for the reason that a complaint against the petitioner made by one Chinnaswamy is after 30 days from the date of the draw of lots / bidding process, which is impermissible as per the terms of the contract, allowed the writ petition and has set aside the notice dated 02.08.2024 (Annexure-'A' to the writ petition) and directed the second respondent (appellant herein) to permit the petitioner to commission the Retail Outlet Dealership of Petrol bunk as per letter of intent. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal is filed.
8. Respondent No.2 (appellant herein) submits that the learned Single Judge erred in appreciating the fact that the petitioner concealed the information that the land taken on lease in Sy.No.88/2, Panthanahalli Village, Kyasamballi Hobli, KGF Taluk, was surrendered by the husband of the petitioner on 06.09.2021. It is submitted that the impugned notice has been issued to the petitioner for violation of the following terms of the contract:
"If any statement made in the application or in the documents enclosed therewith or subsequently submitted in pursuance of the application by the candidate at any stage is found to have been suppressed / misrepresented / incorrect or false, then the application is liable to be rejected without assigning any reason and in case the applicant has been appointed as a dealer, the dealership is liable to be terminated. In such cases the candidate / dealer shall have no claim whatsoever against the respective Oil Company".
For the said reason, it is prayed that the order of the learned Single Judge be set aside and writ petition be dismissed.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (respondent No.1 herein) justify the order passed by the learned Single Judge and prays for dismissal of the writ appeal.
10. Perusal of the papers produced by the parties concerned show that when the application was made for allotment of a Ret
