- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27969 WP No. 29118 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 29118 OF 2023 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. APEKSHA H N D/O NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT: #1338 AMBEDKAR NAGARA HOLENARASIPURA HASSAN-573 211 … PETITIONER (BY SMT. BHARGAVI S.V., ADVOCATE FOR SRI MALLAHAR RAO., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD ., OFFICE NO.8/2, NEAR CAUVERY THEATRE HPCL OFFICERS APARTMENT SANKEY ROAD, SADASHIVA NAGAR BANGALORE-560 003 REP BY GENERAL MANAGER 2. HEAD OF REGIONAL OFFICE BENGALURU RETAIL REGIONAL OFFICE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED NO.77, OLD MADRAS RAOD DOORAVANI NAGAR POST K R PURAM Digitally signed by PRAKASH N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27969 WP No. 29118 of 2023 BENGALURU-560 016 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B PRAMOD., ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMUNICATION DATED 04.12.2023, ISSUED BY R2 BEARING REF NO.HPC16964936136938 AT ANNEXURE-H AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FRESH MATTERS LIST 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 communication at Annexure-'H' dated 04.12.2023, whereby the petitioner was informed by respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., (HPCL) that the candidature of the petitioner was found to be ineligible, while clarifying that the candidature may be considered for selection along with Group-3 applicants as per the Guidelines. The petitioner has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to consider the application of the petitioner for allotment of retail outlet dealership under Group-1 category as per application vide Annexure-'B' dated 05.10.2023. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27969 WP No. 29118 of 2023 2. The communication at Annexure-'H' is based on the premise that the land documents submitted by the petitioner was not valid for considering the offer in Group- 1 category. The reasons assigned at para-3 of Annexure- 'H' is as follows:- "3. However, it is observed that land documents submitted by you are not valid for considering the offered land under Group 1 for reasons as detailed below. "Applicant applied under Group 1. But as per land documents submitted applicant doesn’t fall in Group 1." 3. Perused the Guidelines on selection of dealers for regular and rural retail outlets through draw, a copy of which is enclosed at Annexure-'A'. Under Clause 4(vi), there is categorization of applicants under Group-1, Group-2, and Group-3. Group-1 relates to applicants having suitable piece of land in the advertised location/ area either by way of ownership / long term lease for a - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27969 WP No. 29118 of 2023 period of minimum 19 years 11 months or as advertised by the OMC. 4. It is the contention of respondent HPCL that the petitioner in her application had averred that the lands in Survey Nos.106/1 and 97/14 and submitted, that insofar as Survey No.106/1, there is no issue as the petitioner's offer is indeed acceptable, however, as regards the land offered in Survey No.97/14, what has been offered by way of documents is Agreement for Sale dated 20.09.2023, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-'F'. 5. It is the contention of respondents that the Agreement of Sale would not be sufficient to indicate the document of ownership insofar as the property in Survey No.97/14. 6. Though learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the registered General Power of Attorney alongwith Agreement of Sale may be taken note of as fulfilling essential requirement of ownership, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27969 WP No. 29118 of 2023 however, it must be noticed that this Court cannot sit in appeal as regards the decision of the authority and it is respondent HPCL which is to decide regarding the suitability and fulfillment of criteria regarding the ownership. 7. The contention of learned counsel appearing for respondents that there are other applicants in Group-2, is an aspect that cannot be ignored. Any stretching of eligibility conditions would prejudice the rights of other applicants in Group-2. Needless to state that it is the stand of HPCL that the petitioner's application will still be considered in Group-3, subject to the selection process graduating from Group-2 and Group-3. 8. Accordingly, the Court is of the view that the interpretation resorted to by HPCL regarding the ownership of land which is asserted by the petitioner cannot be interfered with, while observing that the communication of the respondent that the petitioner's - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27969 WP No. 29118 of 2023 application would be considered at the stage of Group-3 is noticed to be kept open to be taken note of by respondent HPCL, if selection process reaches such stage. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VGR