- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5275 WP No. 105341 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO.105341 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SHRI. RAMESH S/O NAGAPPA MALAGI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: DURGADEVI NAGAR, RATTIHALLI, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI-581 111. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. HEMANTHKUMAR L. HAVARAGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED (A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISES) REGISTERED OFFICE, BHARAT BHAVAN 4 AND 6, CURRIMBHOY ROAD, BALLARD ESTATE, P.B. NO.688, MUMBAI-400 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED (A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISES), NEAR DESUR RAILWAY STATION, DESUR, BELAGAVI-590 014, REPRESENTED BY ITS TERRITORIAL MANAGER. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HAVERI, DISTRICT: HAVERI, PIN-581 121. 4. THE TAHASHILDAR, HIREKERUR TALUK, HIREKERUR, PIN-581 111. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5275 WP No. 105341 of 2024 5. SHRI. ABHILASH K., AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESSES, R/O: C/O. SUBHAS S/O KAREGOUDA RAMALINGANANAVAR, A/P. ITAGI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581 111. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C.V. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R2; SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R3-R4; SRI. VISHWANATH BICHAGATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Hemanthkumar L.Havaragi., counsel for the petitioner, Sri.C.V.Angadi., counsel for respondents 1 and 2, Sri.Praveen K.Uppar., AGA for respondents 3 and 4 and Sri.Vishwanath Bichagatti., counsel for respondent No.5 have appeared in person. 2. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking following reliefs: A. A writ in the nature of certiorari to the set- aside the 5th respondent application was selected as Group-1 at Sl.No.1, in online, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5275 WP No. 105341 of 2024 published by the 1st and 2nd respondent as Rural Retails Outlet dealership of BPCL at Serial 483 in pertains to Haveri District and the name of the location is shown as Itagi, vide Annexure-D. B. A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 and 2 to appoint the petitioner to regular and Rural Retails Outlet dealership of BPCL at Serial 483 in the Group-2 list pertains to Haveri District and the name of the location is shown as Itagi, Vide Annexure-D and give a No Objection Certificate. As per notification dated 25/09/2023, published by the respondent No.2, at Sl.No.483, Vide Annexure- B and B1. 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 4. The issue falls on a narrow compass and relates to the acceptance of the candidature of the fifth respondent. An advertisement was issued for the award of MS/HSD Retail Outlet Dealership at location Itagi within the limits of Ranebennur Taluk, Haveri District, Karnataka State. Total sixteen applications were received for the subject location i.e., - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5275 WP No. 105341 of 2024 Group-1 one application, Group-2 fourteen applications and Group-3 one application. The petitioner applied under Group-2. The fifth respondent applied under Group-1. The fifth respondent was the sole applicant under Group-1 for BPCL dealership at Sy.No.53/1 of Itagi Village, Ranebennur Taluk, Haveri District, Karnataka State was reserved for the SC category. The fifth respondent was qualified and his name was short-listed. A letter of Intent was issued to him. Thereafter, NOCs were issued by the various Authorities/ Departments. The petitioner has urged several contentions. His main allegation is that Sy.No.53/2/1 does not have any road. It is also contended that despite the public objections, the fifth respondent’s candidature was accepted. The petitioner further contends that the land which has been identified by him was nearest and was within the radius of 100 meters. However, the same has not been considered by the Authority and has erroneously accepted the candidature of the fifth respondent. The contentions are noted with utmost care. However, the same cannot be accepted. What is required to be considered is whether the petitioner has a locus to question the selection of the candidature of the fifth respondent. The answer is no. The - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5275 WP No. 105341 of 2024 reason is simple. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was the applicant under Group-2, the fifth respondent was the sole applicant under Group-1. It is significant to note that after due scrutiny, the Authority accepted the candidature of the fifth respondent, who was the sole applicant under Group-1. If the candidatures of the applicants under Group-1 were rejected, then the applicants under Group-2 will be considered. Such an occasion is absent in the case, since the candidature of the applicant under Group-1 has been selected. Hence, the grievance of the petitioner against the fifth respondent cannot be sustained, because he is not an applicant in Group-1. The petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, it is rejected. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE CLK/MRP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 29