Srikar Punith Rajanhalli vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Others

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

The petitioner claims to be a resident of Davanagere and had made an application for a Liquid Petroleum Gas Distributorship of M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, pursuant to an advertisement released by the respondent vide application dated 21.10.2013. The requirement was that the petitioner should have his own immovable property to locate the godown and therefore the petitioner had furnished details of his property and had also produced the sale deed in respect of the property purchased by him, which according to him, was suitable for the godown and office.

Pursuant to the application, a spot inspection was conducted and the petitioner was also ready to offer yet another parcel of land belonging to his wife for construction of the godown, if the land already offered was not sufficient.

It is stated that the respondent as per letter dated 11.1.2014, informed the petitioner that he had been qualified for draw for selection of the distributorship and he was called upon to present himself personally with all particulars.

The petitioner however, was surprised to receive a further letter dated 29.10.2014, to indicate that the land offered by him was not available on the date of submission of the application and therefore, he was disqualified. Therefore, the petitioner had issued a letter to claim that the land in his possession was short by two metres in length and therefore, the objection as regards the land being insufficient was frivolous and that it was in consonance with the guidelines issued by the Petroleum and Explosive Safety Organisation.

The petitioner has also mentioned an instance, where in a similar situation, another person had been granted the distributorship notwithstanding that the land fell short by few metres than the prescribed guidelines. It is in this vein that the petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent.

Incidentally, it transpires that the respondent has now granted the distributorship to the second respondent, subject to verification of his credentials. It is at that stage the present writ petition was filed.

There is an order of stay operating in the first respondent taking any further steps. The distributorship has not been confirmed in favour of the second respondent and hangs in limbo, thereby putting the general public to inconvenience and hardship.

The respondents have entered appearance and have filed serious objections to point out that the petitioner seeking to simplify the area of controversy is not fair and that in fact, there were several infirmities, which were highlighted by the respondent in rejecting the application of the petitioner. In that, not only was the land offered by the petitioner short by two metres, it was not even standing in the name of the petitioner as on the date of the application. Though that is sought to be rectified at a later date by offering the properties belonging to the father and mother of the petitioner as also his wife, it is pointed out that a family, which is considered as a unit, is recognized as consisting of wife and children of an applicant, which would not include his parents. Therefore, the properties of the parents being offered was not in consonance with the guidelines that were issued from time to time. The learned counsel for the respondent seek to question the tenability of the present writ petition and seek dismissal of the same.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner would insist that the guidelines have been clearly met and the rejection is unfair only because the land in question was short by two metres. The other objections taken are frivolous objections and that the petition ought to be reconsidered and the respondent be directed to confirm the distributorship in favour of the petitioner.

Given the strict guidelines, by which the respondent proceeds and having regard to the large number of applicants waiting for such distributorship, the respondent is left with no alternative, but to closely apply the guidelines including the correctness of the documents that are furnished as on the date of the application. For each applicant would try to overreach the other in furnishing particulars in respect of their respective properties and their eligibility for such distributorship. Hence, the action of the respondent cannot be faulted in having rejected the application of the petitioner and having accepted the application of the second respondent whose credentials are yet to be verified and yet to be confirmed for such distributorship. In any event, the petitioner has not satisfied the requirements as prescribed in the application. Hence, there is no merit in this petition and the petition is dismissed.