- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11035 WP No. 105033 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 105033 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SUSHAS S/O. RAMCHANDRA DOMANE, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: BEDIKIHAL VILLAGE, NIPPANI TALUKA, BELAGAVI – 591 214. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER RETAIL, BELGAUM RO SAMBHAJI ROAD, RANI CHANNAMMA NAGAR P B ROAD, BELAGAVI – 590 006. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI – 590 001. 3. 4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 01. ATHARVA S/O. GAJANAN SAWARDEKAR, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/AT NO. 75/1, PLOT NO.15, SANKALP NAGAR, GADHINGLAJ, DIST. KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA-416502. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C.V. ANGADI., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R2 & R3; SRI. KIRAN ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R4) Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11035 WP No. 105033 of 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI, AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION/ ENDORSEMENT DATED 6/6/2024 BEARING NO BGMRO/PKB/NRO-315, ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-E, REJECTING THE COMPLAINT OF PETITIONER IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ of Certiorari, and quash the impugned Communication/Endorsement dated 6.6.2024 bearing No. BGMRO/PKB/NRO-315, issued by 1st Respondent vide Annexure-E, rejecting the complaint of petitioner in the ends of justice and equity. b. Issue writ of certiorari, and quash the impugned Advertisement/notification vide Annexure-A &B inviting application for construction of proposed Retail Outlet Dealership at from Bugatealur Government Hospital Towards Ajara on Shippur to Ajar Main Road Hukkeri Taluka, District Belagavi, SL No. 315 of the Notification Vide Annexure-A and B in so far SL No.315 is concerned in the ends of justice and equity. 2. Respondent No.1 – Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) had on 28.6.2023 issued an advertisement, inviting applications for the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11035 WP No. 105033 of 2024 construction of a proposed Retail Outlet at Bugatealur Government Hospital towards Ajara on Shippur to Ajara Main Road Hukkeri Taluka, Belagavi District, which is found at Sl.No.315 of the said notification. 3. The Petitioner, wanted to apply and set up a Retail Outlet, initially, the Petitioner was under the impression that it would come under the rural retail outlet category since the road on which the location at 315 was situated was a major district road. 4. When the Petitioner was informed that it will be treated as a regular retail category, the Petitioner submitted a complaint in that regard. HPCL on 23.4.2024 issued a letter calling upon the Petitioner to submit the necessary documents, which were submitted by the Petitioner. The Respondents vide letter dated 6.6.2024 rejected the complaint of the Petitioner. It is aggrieved by the same that the Petitioner is before this Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11035 WP No. 105033 of 2024 5. The submission of Sri.Srinivas B.Naik, learned counsel for the Petitioner is that as on the date on which the notification had been issued on 28.06.2023, the concerned road was a major district road and not a State Highway and as such, there could not be a regular retail outlet , which could be set up at the said location and in that background, he submits that the complaint which had been filed by the Petitioner, ought to have been considered by the Respondent and the entire notification in respect of Item No.315 was required to be recinded. 6. Sri.C.V.Angadi, learned counsel for HPCL would submit that there was a proposal which had been initiated by the Government on 1.9.2020 to upgrade the present road into a State Highway. By the time that the notification was issued on 28.6.2023, the HPCL was aware of steps which have been taken to declare it as a State Highway and it is for that reason, expecting - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11035 WP No. 105033 of 2024 the major district road to be upgraded to a State Highway, the notification dated 28.6.2023 was issued. The stand of the HPCL is borne out by the subsequent notification, which came to be issued soon after on 12.7.2023 declaring the said road to be a State Highway. On that ground, he submits that the action taken by HPCL is proper and correct. 7. Sri.Kiran Angadi, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4-allottee would submit that Respondent No.4 had applied for allotment in terms of the notification. Having submitted all the documents as required, his application has been processed and allotment made, and there can be no fault found in relation thereto. 8. Heard Sri.Srinivas B.Naik, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Sri.C.V.Angadi, learned counsel for Respondent No.1, Sri.Sharad V.Magadum, learned AGA for Respondents No.2 and 3 and Sri.Kiran Angadi, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11035 WP No. 105033 of 2024 learned counsel for Respondent No.4 and perused papers. 9. The short question that would arise for consideration is whether HPCL could have issued a notification for establishment of a regular retail outlet on the assumption that, that road is going to be declared as a State Highway when, in fact, as on the date of issuance of the notification, it was a major district road? 10. The facts are not in dispute. The road on which location No.315 has been marked as on the date of the notification, that is 28.6.2023 was a major district road. Though there was a proposal which had been approved on 1.9.2020, the proposal had not fructified into a notification under Section 3 of the State Highways Act notifying the said road to be a State Highway. The said notification came into being only on 12.7.2023, subsequent to the notification issued - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11035 WP No. 105033 of 2024 inviting applications on 28.6.2023. Thus, as on the date on which the notification was published, the road was a major district road and not a State Highway. 11. The qualifications under the notification would have to be taken into consideration as on the date of the notification insofar as HPCL is concerned. In the event of there being any change in circumstances or the applicable law, it would be the date of the application and or the date of award which would have to be taken into consideration, depending on the nature of the dispute, if any, which arises between the parties. 12. Insofar as the claim of HPCL as regards the road being a State Highway, the same is palpably false as on 28.6.2023 since as on that date, the said road was a district road. Therefore, ex facie it appears that the action taken by Respondent No.1-HPCL is not in consonance with law. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11035 WP No. 105033 of 2024 13. Sri.Sharad Magadum, learned AGA would however submit that the last date of submission of application was 27.9.2023, by which date, the State had declared the said road as a State Highway and as such, on the date on which the application could be submitted by the Petitioner or Respondent No.4, the road being a State Highway, the establishment of a regular retail outlet on the State Highway, is proper and correct. The same is borne out by records inasmuch as even the complaint which has been submitted by the Petitioner was on 30.12.2023, much after the road was designated as a State Highway on 12.7.2023. Thus, even on the date on which the complaint was submitted by the Petitioner, the concerned road was no longer a district road, but was a State Highway. 14. Though I answer the point raised by holding that it is the date of the notification which is required to be considered for the purpose of designating the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11035 WP No. 105033 of 2024 establishment of a rural retail outlet or a regular retail outlet on the basis of the qualification of the location, in the present case, considering the peculiarity, inasmuch as once the notification submitted was issued on 28.6.2023, the road was notified as a State Highway on 12.7.2023, with the last date of application to be submittted being 27.9.2023 and the complaint filed by the Petitioner was only on 30.12.2023, I am of the considered opinion that even if this Court were to intercede in the matter, at this stage, then the same would only result in a fresh notification being published by HPCL and this notification would only indicate that location 315 is on a State Highway, thereby requiring the establishment of a regular retail outlet. Hence, no particular purpose would be served by passing such an order. 15. In that view of the matter, the actions on part of Respondent No.1 - officers not being as per the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11035 WP No. 105033 of 2024 applicable law as on that date thereby depriving the Petitioner of his participation in the application process, cost of Rs.50,000/- is imposed on HPCL, payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which shall be paid within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 16. 16. It would serve HPCL well to ascertain the nature of the location before issuance of a notification, so as to avoid these kinds of situations, which has in this matter, resulted in, the Petitioner, being unable to participate in the application process. 17. The Writ Petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE PRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 92