- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19874 WP No. 2279 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.2279 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI.S.SRIDHAR S/O SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESIDING AT YENADHALLI VILLAGE HUTTUR HOBLI AND POST KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN CODE - 563131 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MOHAN MAHABALESHWAR BHAT.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ZONAL HEAD (RETAIL) M/S HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORORATION LIMITED (R) NO.8/1, HPCL OFFICERS APARTMENTS NEAR CAUVERY THEATRE SANKEY ROAD BENGALURU-560 003 2. STATE HEAD (RETAIL) BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED (R) DUPARK TRINITY, 7TH FLOOR M.G ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19874 WP No. 2279 of 2024 3. STATE HEAD (RETAIL) INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED (R) P.KALINGARAO ROAD DOUBLE ROAD, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU-560 027 4. K.PAVITRA S D/O SRINIVASA S AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT NO.14/B BANASHANKARI, 5TH, 3RD CROSS BYATARAYANAPURA SAHAKAR NAGAR POST BENGALURU - 560 092 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.PRAMOD, ADVOCATE FOR R.1; V/O/DATED 04.03.2024 - SRI.SANTHOSH S NAGARALE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS (VK FILED FOR R.3); SMT.SHILPA RANI, ADVOCATE FOR R.4 (VK NOT FILED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ORDER OR DIRECTION PROHIBITING THE RESPONDENTS FROM GRANTING ANY OUTLET IN GROUP-I CATEGORY TO SUCH PERSONS WHOSE LAND HAS NOT BEEN CONVERTED FOR NON-AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES AS ON THE DATE OF LEASE OR PRIOR TO LEASE IN RESPECT OF LONG TERM LEASE FOR A PERIOD OF 19 YEARS 11 MONTHS AND ABOVE AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19874 WP No. 2279 of 2024 ORAL ORDER The captioned writ petition is filed seeking for following reliefs; "(i) Issue a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ or order or direction prohibiting the Respondents from granting any outlet in Group-I category to such persons whose land has not been converted for non-agricultural purposes as on the date of lease or prior to lease in respect of long term lease for a period of 19 years 11 months and above. (ii) Consequently, issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the respondents to make it compulsory the production of conversion order in the case of long term lease of a land for 19 years 11 months and above for considering the applications in Group-I. (iii) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice." 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1. Perused the material on record. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19874 WP No. 2279 of 2024 3. The petitioner claims to be an applicant pursuant to the advertisement dated 28.06.2023 issued by the respondent–Corporation inviting applications for selection of dealers for Regular Rural Retail Outlet under Group–I category. The petitioner’s grievance is that the respondent–authorities are allegedly processing and entertaining applications of certain candidates without insisting upon production of conversion orders in respect of the subject lands, converting the same from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes. It is in this backdrop, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondents from allotting retail outlets in favour of such applicants whose lands are not converted as on the date of lease or prior thereto, particularly in cases involving long-term lease of 19 years and 11 months or more. Consequentially, a writ of mandamus is also sought to direct the respondents to mandatorily insist - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19874 WP No. 2279 of 2024 upon production of valid conversion orders as a condition precedent for consideration of applications. 4. The said claim is stoutly resisted by the respondents by filing statement of objections. Respondent No.1 has, at the outset, questioned the very maintainability of the writ petition by contending that the nature of relief sought is general, sweeping and in the realm of a Public Interest Litigation, though the petition is not styled as such. It is specifically contended that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any enforceable legal right or personal injury so as to maintain the present writ petition. It is further contended that issuance of a writ of prohibition as sought for, against a Public Sector Undertaking in contractual matters relating to allotment of retail outlets, is misconceived and not maintainable in law. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the averments made in the petition, would place reliance on certain judicial precedents to contend that even in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19874 WP No. 2279 of 2024 contractual matters, where arbitrariness or deviation from prescribed norms is alleged, this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court ought to intervene and ensure that the respondents adhere strictly to statutory requirements, including insistence on land conversion prior to grant of dealership. 6. Per-contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, on instructions, submits that the petitioner’s candidature itself has not been favourably considered and that the retail outlet in question has already been allotted to a third-party applicant. It is further brought to the notice of this Court that, aggrieved by non-consideration of his application and consequent allotment in favour of another candidate, the petitioner has already instituted a separate writ petition in W.P.No.10480/2025 challenging the said action, and the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19874 WP No. 2279 of 2024 said matter is presently pending consideration before this Court. 7. Having bestowed anxious consideration to the rival submissions and on perusal of the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered view that the reliefs sought in the present writ petition are couched in broad and omnibus terms, seeking general directions without establishing a specific and subsisting cause of action. More importantly, the subsequent development, namely, allotment of the retail outlet in favour of a third party and the petitioner having already challenged the same in W.P.No.10480/2025, renders the present writ petition infructuous. The issues sought to be canvassed herein, insofar as they relate to the petitioner’s grievance, can be more appropriately adjudicated in the pending writ petition where the challenge is specific and directed against a concrete action. 8. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to examine the merits of the contentions urged, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19874 WP No. 2279 of 2024 nor to advert to the case law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. All questions of law and fact, including the requirement of land conversion and its applicability in the selection process, are left open to be urged and considered in an appropriate proceeding. 9. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The writ petition stands dismissed as having become infructuous. (ii) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy, and all contentions are kept open. (iii) It is further clarified that this order shall not come in the way of the petitioner in prosecuting W.P.No.10480/2025, which shall be considered on its own merits in accordance with law. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42