- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33449 WP No. 3433 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3433 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: YAHAVANTHA S AGED 39 YEARS S/O SANJEEVA R/AT NO 9-96 PADAVU HOUSE POST SHIRVA 574116 KAUP TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S K ACHARYA.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. HINDUSTAL PETROLEUM CORPROATION LIMITED (GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISES) HAVING REGIONAL OFFICE AT NO 17, JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD, MUMBAI 400020 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED (GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISES) Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33449 WP No. 3433 of 2024 MANGALORE RETAIL REGIONAL OFFICE 1ST FLOOR, DEO GRATIS BUILDING CHILIMBI, URVA STORES, MANGALORE 575006, D K DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE HEAD NAVEEN KUMAR M G. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B PRAMOD.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; R3 SERVED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO- QUASH THE IMPUGNED DECISION PROCESS OF THE RESPONDENT HPCL VIDE REF. HPC16971804012369 DATED 20.01.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND TO DECLARE THE SAME AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ILLEGAL AND; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT HPCL TO CONFIRM THE ALLOTMENT OF RO DEALERSHIP IN PURSUANCE TO THEIR RESULT OF DRAW OF LOTS DATED 15.12.2023 AS PER THE COMMUNICATION ORDER DATED 16.12.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-C, WITH REGARD TO THE LOCATION POINT ON KATAPADY- BELMAN ROAD FROM MOODABETTU TO SHIRVA CIRCLE, BY CALLING FOR FURNISHING THE DOCUMENTS IF ANY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33449 WP No. 3433 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner has succeeded in his application for allotment of a retail dealership outlet under the Scheduled Caste Category with the Communication dated 16.12.2023, and the first respondent has addressed this Communication stipulating that the petitioner is provisionally selected on drawing up of lot but the award of dealership would be subject to compliance with the terms and conditions. 2. The first respondent has subsequently informed the petitioner vide the Communication dated 16.12.2023 [Annexure–C] that he must upload different documents as mentioned in such communication. In response, the petitioner has uploaded all the documents including the Lease Deed, which is presented for registration on 26.12.2023 with the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33449 WP No. 3433 of 2024 However, the second respondent has issued the impugned communication dated 20.01.2024 [Annexure–H] cancelling the award of dealership to the petitioner. The second respondent has informed the petitioner that the documents submitted by him are not valid and cannot be considered under Group- 1 for these reasons: [a] The Appendix-III [the application submitted] does not mention the relationship between the petitioner and his landlord. [b] The lease Deed is registered after the submission of the application. 3. The petitioner, in filing his application on 13.10.2023 in the prescribed Form, has disclosed the landlord’s name [in terms of the lease deed registered on 26.12.2023] declaring that there is no relationship [other than the landlord and tenant relationship] but asserting that his application - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33449 WP No. 3433 of 2024 is under Category-I. The eligibility for allotment of dealership is in terms of the Guidelines on Selection of Dealers For Regular and Rural Retail Outlets Through Draw of Lots/Bidding Process [for short 'the Guidelines']. The Guidelines, as part of the eligibility criteria, stipulate that the applicants will be classified into three groups viz., Group-1, Group-2 and Group- 3, and that [in terms of Clause 4(vi)] the applicants in Group-I will be those who have a suitable piece of land in the advertised location/area either under ownership or long-term lease for a minimum period of 19 years 11 months. 4. The Guidelines further stipulate, as relevant for the present purposes, that [i] the land should be available with the applicant as on the date of application and effective for 19 years 11 months from the date of advertisement or after the date of advertisement but not later than the date of the application and [ii] the applicant who is selected - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33449 WP No. 3433 of 2024 under Group-I, if a tenant, should upload a copy of the lease deed that is executed/registered/issued by the date of the application. 5. Sri S. K. Acharya, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is truthful in declaring that the petitioner has no other relationship with the landlord and in claiming allotment under Group-1, and therefore, the second respondent should not have rejected the allotment especially when the petitioner has uploaded the Lease Deed registered as on 26.12.2023 [the last date for uploading]. Sri B. Pramod, the learned counsel for the respondents, asserts that the petitioner could not have made an application under Group-I if he did not hold a Lease Deed for the land offered as of the date of the application and that the records demonstrate that the petitioner has secured registered Lease Deed after the provisional selection. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33449 WP No. 3433 of 2024 6. Sri B. Pramod canvases that the petitioner has declared in the application that his Lease Deed is dated 27.09.2023 but the petitioner has only uploaded a copy of the Lease Deed, which is presented for registration on 26.12.2023 and that the petitioner's provisional selection would be of any avail to him only if on verification it was found that he had the benefit of a lease deed that was executed and registered as of the last date of the application. 7. These rival submissions are considered in the light of the indisputable proposition that it would be open to the parties to a document to present the document for registration under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 within 90 days from the date of execution. This Court infers that the second respondent is persuaded to hold that the petitioner did not hold a lease for the land offered as of the last date for uploading because: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33449 WP No. 3433 of 2024 • in the application, the date of the Lease Deed is mentioned as 27.09.2023, and • though the Lease Deed is dated 27.09.2023, it is presented for registration on 26.12.2023, on the last date for uploading However, the Clause-4[f] of the Guidelines uses the expression that indicates that the documents must have been executed/registered/issued by the date of the application, but the respondents have extended the last date for uploading the documents. 8. This Court opines that it was incumbent upon the second respondent to ascertain the actual date of execution and the reason for registration on 26.12.2023 before proceeding to cancel the provisional allotment in favour of the petitioner. This Court, in the absence of such consideration and the lack of opportunity, concludes - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33449 WP No. 3433 of 2024 that the second respondent's decision to cancel the allotment is arbitrary. 9. It is now brought on record that after the impugned communication, the third respondent has been provisionally selected for the award of dealership, and this Court is of the view that all further proceedings for completion of this allotment must be deferred subject to the second respondent extending an opportunity to the petitioner to demonstrate the actual date of execution of the Lease Deed. Hence, the following ORDER [A] The petition is allowed in part. [b} The second respondent's Communication dated 20.01.2024 [Annexure-H] is quashed directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's application after extending an opportunity to the petitioner - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33449 WP No. 3433 of 2024 to demonstrate the actual date of execution of the subject Lease Deed. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE NV