- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24161 WP No. 19128 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 19128 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI R N NATRAJA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O N NARASIMHA REDDY, R/O REDDYHALLI, MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT – 563131. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.SHRINIVAS B. S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. HEAD OF TERRITORY OFFICE, M/S BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., BPCL BENGALURU RETAIL TERRITORY OFFICE, DUPARC TRINITY, 7TH FLOOR, 17TH MG ROAD, BENGALURU – 560001. 2. M/S BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE AT BHARAT BHAVAN, 4 AND 6 CURRIMBHOY ROAD, BALLARD ESTATE, PB NO 688, MUMBAI-40000. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.N.J.KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ORDER OR DIRECTION, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT CANCELLING THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER FOR AWARD OF RO DEALERSHIP VIDE APPLICATION NO BPC 16974306482390, WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER THOUGH EMAIL DATED 22/05/2025 PRODUCED AS ANNEXUREK. Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24161 WP No. 19128 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question the validity of the order passed by the respondent cancelling the application of the petitioner for award of RO dealership vide application No.BPC 16974306482390. 2. In terms of the communication of the petitioner at Annexure – J, the respondent authority has observed that on the basis of field verification, candidature of the petitioner was found ineligible for the following reason: “The offered land bearing Survey Number 33/7 is also offered by other applicant-S K Anjaneya Reddy for the same advertised location thereby leading to violation of Clause 12(g) of Appendix X-A” 3. It is the case of the petitioner that such disqualification has made out in the impugned communication has been taken care of by the landlord in cancelling the lease agreement by cancellation of lease dated 09.06.2025. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24161 WP No. 19128 of 2025 4. Learned counsel for the respondent - Corporation draws attention to the application made and in specific to Annexure – D and has pointed out that the application is dated 16.10.2023 and at clause 15(m) there is an undertaking to the effect as follows: “m. I am also aware that the same land cannot be offered by more than one applicant for a particular RO location against the same advertisement. In case it is found that the same piece of land as offered by me has been offered by other applicant(s) for this location then my candidature for RO dealership will be rejected/Dealership terminated, if already appointed.” 5. It is the case of learned counsel for the respondent that the undertaking stands violated as same land has been leased by the land owner also to one Sri.Anjaneya Reddy. It is further submitted that cancellation of the lease agreement was on 09.06.2025. Admittedly, when the application itself was made on 16.10.2023 and the cancellation of the lease agreement was not only after the date of application but after the date of termination at Annexure – J, the impugned order of termination ought not to be interfered with. 6. It is submitted that during the course of arguments, it was pointed out by the petitioner that there was a proposal by - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24161 WP No. 19128 of 2025 the Corporation to make the allotment in favour of Sri.Anjaneya Reddy. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent - Corporation would point out that even the case of the said Sri.Anjaneya Reddy would suffer from the same disqualification and appropriate steps taken as per the records and applicable rules. Said submission is taken note of. 8. The petitioner admittedly suffers from disqualification regarding which there is no ambiguity. The reliance on the cancellation deed though executed at a later date, will not take away the effect of disqualification and undertaking at 15(m). Accordingly, the impugned order does not call for interference. 9. Accordingly, petition stands disposed off. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8