- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31893 WP No. 13924 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 13924 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SOWBHAGYA LAKSHMI G E D/O G ESWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O KONDALAHALLY VILLAGE MAIN ROAD MALKALMURU TALUK CHITRADURGA DIST-577 529 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GRUDATH V R, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SPOORTHY HEGDE NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE) AND: BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., BY ITS TERRITORY OFFICER T M RETAIL, MANGALORE MANGALORE COASTAL INSTALLATION NEAR APMC YARD, OFF NH-17 BAIKAMPADI-575011 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. N J KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH IMPUGNED LETTER/NOTICE DATED 25.02.2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-'J', BY DECLARING THE SAME IS ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31893 WP No. 13924 of 2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged the letter bearing No.15450597433674 dated 25.02.2019 issued by the respondent, by which she was moved from group -I applicants to group -III applicants for allotment of a petroleum dealership. She has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent to consider the letter dated 12.03.2019 and to allot a retail dealership at Kondalahallil village towards Molkalmuru Taluk, Chitradurga District, as she was the successful candidate in draw of lots conducted on 30.01.2019. 2. (i) The facts in brief are that the petitioner had applied against a notification published by the respondent for the establishment of a petrol bunk in Kondalahallil village, Kasaba Hobli, Molkalmuru Taluk. The petitioner was one of the applicants, who had offered the land in survey No.95 and 52 of Kondalahally Village for the outlet. Before she filed an application, she had obtained an opinion from an advocate that the land offered by her conformed to the criteria prescribed by the respondent to treat her in Group-I. At the draw of lots, the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31893 WP No. 13924 of 2019 petitioner was selected in Group-I for the RO dealership at Kondalahalli Village. The petitioner thereafter submitted an initial security deposit of Rs.40,000/- on 06.02.2019. She also took steps by approaching the Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank for a confirmation letter of sanction of loan to start the retail outlet in the aforesaid place. When things stood thus, the respondent addressed a letter dated 25.02.2019 stating that the documents furnished were not valid to treat the petitioner under Group-I and that she would be moved to Group-III as per the guidelines. The petitioner claims that after she met the respondent, she came to know that there was a typographical error in the details of land in the opinion given by the advocate. The petitioner thereafter sent an affidavit along with the corrected opinion of the Advocate on 12.03.2019 through Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due (RPAD). Though the said communication reached the respondent, the same was replied. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court, challenging the letter dated 25.02.2019 and also has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the letter dated 12.03.2019 and allot the retail outlet. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31893 WP No. 13924 of 2019 (ii) When this petition was listed for final hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner is not interested to pursue this writ petition and brought to the notice of the Court the order dated 10.06.2025 and submitted that the respondents be directed to refund the initial security deposit of Rs.40,000/-. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that since the document furnished by the petitioner did not conform to the requirements prescribed for treating her in group-I, she was moved to Group-III. He has filed an affidavit of the territory manager pursuant to the order dated 10.06.2025 and submits that if the petitioner wants to withdraw her application, the respondent would be constrained to treat it as an abandonment of the application and the initial security deposit shall be forfeited in accordance with the notification. 4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 5. This Court had passed an order dated 10.06.2025, which is as follows: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31893 WP No. 13924 of 2019 "1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo for withdrawal of the above petition, which reads as under: "Memo It is submitted that, the respondents invited application for new petrol bunk to the Kondalahally Village, Kasaba Hobli Malkalmuru Taluk, Chitradurga District in group 1. Petitioner was declared as successful candidate as per Annexure-F, so petitioner paid Sum of Rs.40,000/-to the respondent through online as initial security deposit. Later the entire proposal was cancelled by the respondents so the above Writ petition becomes infructuous. The petition herein request this Hon'ble Court to direct the respondents to refund the initial security deposit of Rs.40,000/- to the petitioner. On the last date of hearing, the respondent counsel submitted that, the petitioner has preferred an Appeal number: A/1773/2023 before the State Consumer forum, Karnataka Challenging the dismissal of the complaint, where the prayer of the complaint and also of the Appeal is to refund the initial security deposit of Rs.40,000/-. It is further submitted that, on the instruction, the petitioner herein undertakes before this Hon'ble Court that, the petitioner would withdraw the A/1773/2023 pending before the State Consumer forum, Karnataka and request this Hon'ble Court to direct the respondents to refund the initial security deposit of Rs.40,000/- to the petitioner in the interest of justice and equity." 2. The said withdrawal is, however, conditional on the refund of the initial security deposit amount of Rs.40,000/- made by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that since the application of the petitioner is still under consideration in Group-3, refund of the money is not - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31893 WP No. 13924 of 2019 permissible and cannot be granted as per the guidelines. 4. Learned counsel further submits that since the petitioner had been moved from Group 1 to Group 3, the respondent shall first consider all the applications of the candidates in Group 1, thereafter the application in Group 2 and thereafter in Group 2, If no candidates are found to be successful in Group 1. If no candidates are successful in both Group 1 and 2 then the candidates in Group 3 would be taken up for consideration. 5. On enquiry as to what would be the time frame that would be required to process Group 1 and Group 2 and thereafter Group 3. He submits that Group 1 had already been processed and there were no successful candidates. The process in respect of Group 2 is going on. 6. As regards the time frame, he seeks for two weeks' time to make his submission and to file an affidavit in relation thereto. 7. Considering that the above petition relates to the process Initiated in the year 2019 and the petitioner had made payment of Rs.40,000/- in the year 2019 on account of the petitioner being selected. The said amount continues to be held by the respondent. 8. 1 am of the considered opinion that the details of the amount collected by the respondent in such a situation also have to be placed on record. Hence, the respondent Is directed to place on record the total - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31893 WP No. 13924 of 2019 number of notifications that have been issued inviting applications from the year 2019 till now, the total number of applicants selected under all the notifications and the amount received by the respondent as Initial security deposits from all the selected candidates from the year 2019 till now. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent submits that in the event of the candidate who has made a security deposit being unsuccessful, the security deposits would be returned back to the selected candidates. 10. On enquiry as to whether any interest amount would be paid or not. He seeks for a short accommodation to verify and make his submission. 11. Three weeks' time is granted to the learned counsel for the respondent to submit the above details by way of an affidavit, which shall be filed on or before 04.07.2025. 12. Re-list on 09.07.2025.” 6. In response to the said order the respondent has filed an affidavit today, which reads as follows: "I, Mr Vipin Das Vanswal S/o Shri Narayan Das aged 42 residing at Mangalore, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows. 1. I state that I am the Territory Manager, and authorized representative of the Respondent in the above - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31893 WP No. 13924 of 2019 case, I am aware of the facts and circumstances of this case, and I am, hence, competent to swear to this affidavit. 2. I state that the Petitioner submitted an Application dated 17.12.2018 for the allocation of a Retail Outlet Dealership in the location "Kondalahalli Village Towards Molakalmuru(Within Grama Panchayat Limit) under Group 1, Rural-DC category. The said Application was filed in furtherance to the advertisement dated 25.11.2018 for appointment of Retail Outlet Dealership in the State of Karnataka including for the above said location. 3. I state that as per one of the conditions of the Application, she should have confirmatory letter from an Advocate(Appendix-IIIB)giving details of the current ownership, documents relied upon and the category under which the land falls (Group 1 or Group 2), before submitting the Application. 4. I state that in a draw of lots held on 30.01.2019, the Petitioner was declared as successful candidate and she was requested to submit relevant documents mentioned in letter dated 02.02.2019 and was asked to deposit Rs.40,000/- as Initial Security Deposit. 5. I state that the Petitioner deposited Rs.40,000/- and submitted the documents along with Advocate's Letter dated 19.12.2018 confirming that the land falls in Group-1 category. 6. I state that upon verification of the documents submitted, the Respondent came to know that the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31893 WP No. 13924 of 2019 Advocate's letter is dated 19.12.2018, which is after the date of Application. The Application is dated 17.12.2018. Therefore, it is clear violation of the conditions provided in the Application and the Clause 4(v)(k) of the selection guidelines. therefore the Petitioner's candidate was rejected for Group-1 and Petitioner was placed in Group-3 by letter dated 25.02.2019. 7. I state that since the Petitioner was placed in Group-3, her application is still pending, hence the Respondent is holding her Initial Security Deposit of Rs.40,000/- until entire process of selection of candidate is completed and upon completion of the entire process, if the Petitioner is declared as unsuccessful, the said Security deposit will be refunded without interest. 8. I state that subsequent to letter dated 25.02.2019, Issued by Respondent, the Petitioner filed this Writ Petition seeking quashing of the letter dated 25.02.2019 and Writ of Mandamus to consider the Advocate's letter dated 12.03.2019 and direct Respondent to allot dealership to Petitioner. 9. I state that the Petitioner subsequent to filing this Writ Petition, filed Consumer Complaint before the District Consumer Redressal Commission at Chitradurga, numbers as CC No.30/2021. The said Consumer Complaint No.30/2021 was finally heard and the Honourable Commission was pleased to dismiss the complaint by its order dated 14.06.2023. Thereafter, the Petitioner has filed an Appeal before State Consumer Redressal - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31893 WP No. 13924 of 2019 Commission at Bangalore, which is numbered as Appeal No.1773/2023. The said Appeal is pending for hearing as on date. 10. I state that this Honourable court by order dated 10.06.2025 directed the Respondent to file affidavit, hence this affidavit is in compliance of the direction of this honourable court. 11. I state that one notification was issued from 2019 to till date for the said location. Further state that from 2019 to till date at location "Kondalahalli Village Towards Molakalmuru (Within Grama Panchayat Limit), total 05 candidates selected through draw of lots. However, none of the candidates have been qualified for Issuance of Letter of Intent. 12. I state that in such selection from 2019 at the said location, the Respondent has collected ISD amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) and the Respondent is holding Rs.2,00,000/- collected from non- selected candidate in Group-1 (4 candidate of Group 1, out of which 2 have been placed in Group-3) & Group 2 (1 candidate) 13. I state that the said ISD amount to non-selected candidate, will be refunded without interest, after completion of the whole selection process. 14. I state that with a view of this pending writ petition, the Respondent has not made any further process for selection of candidates for the said location. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31893 WP No. 13924 of 2019 15. I state that the writ petition is not maintainable and same may be dismissed on merit and also on the ground of initiating Parallel proceedings before Consumer Commission." 7. It appears that the ground on which the petitioner was moved from Group-I to Group-III was that the opinion of the advocate furnished by the petitioner was after the date of application. The fact that the land offered by the petitioner was suitable in all respects is not in dispute. For a technical error, the petitioner is sought to be moved from Group-I to Group-III. If the petitioner is not willing to pursue her application in Group-III, she cannot be compelled to continue the application, as she may loose out on any other opportunity available to her. The respondent would not suffer any loss or hardship as there are other candidates who have applied for the retail outlet in Kondalahalli Village and those applications could be considered by the respondent. 8. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed-in-part. The relief sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be granted as she is not interested in pursuing the writ petition. However, the respondent is directed - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31893 WP No. 13924 of 2019 to refund the initial deposit of Rs.40,000/- without interest to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34