Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 157 (KAR)

K. N. Ramesh v. Union of India

2013-02-11

MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR

body2013
ORDER Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.—Petitioner has sought for a direction to consider the representation dated 31-5-2012 vide Annexure-M and to appoint the petitioner as dealer for retail outlet. Certain consequential reliefs are also sought for. Pursuant to the paper publication dated 25-3-2010 issued by the second respondent inviting applications for grant of dealership of petrol bunk at various places including a place in between Dabaspet-Doddaballapur Road (NH 207) between 131 and 137 Kms. the petitioner submitted his application. Petitioner is stated to be an ex-military personnel and his hands are damaged to the maximum extent in Kargil Operation and consequently his services are not continued in the army. 2. Annexure-B is the notification. Clause 3 found in the notification at Annexure-B prescribes the condition that the site over which the petrol bunk is to be established should be leased in favour of the second respondent-company for a minimum period of 15 years with the further renewal period of 15 years. The petitioner wants to establish petrol bunk over the property bearing Sy. No. 33/2 of Pemmanahalli Village, Sompura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, measuring 35 x 35 mtrs., which is owned by respondent 3. Respondent 3 has consented for leasing the property for 15 years. 3. Application came to be filed by the petitioner praying for dealership along with the lease deed executed in favour of second respondent-company for 15 years. However, no renewal clause relating to further period of 15 years is not found in the lease deed. In the meanwhile, the letter of intent is issued by the second respondent-company in favour of the petitioner as per Annexure-C, dated 20-9-2010 imposing condition on the petitioner that he shall lease the suitable plot of land to the second respondent for a period of total 30 years. Certain other conditions are also imposed. Such a condition to lease the property for a total period of 30 years is contrary to the condition imposed in Annexure-B, the notification inviting applications. Annexure-B merely says that the lease must be for a minimum period of 15 years with a renewal clause for a further period of 15 years, whereas the letter of intent imposes a condition on the petitioner that he should lease the property for 30 years in toto. Annexure-B merely says that the lease must be for a minimum period of 15 years with a renewal clause for a further period of 15 years, whereas the letter of intent imposes a condition on the petitioner that he should lease the property for 30 years in toto. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the condition prescribed by the second respondent-Company on the petitioner to lease the property for a total period of 30 years is erroneous, inasmuch as the same runs contrary to the conditions found in the notification inviting the applications at Annexure-B. Therefore, the letter of intent insofar as it relates to directing the petitioner to lease the property for a total period of 30 years is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the following order is made: Annexure-C, dated 20-9-2010 to the aforesaid extent stands set aside. At the most the second respondent-company is permitted to impose the condition as was imposed in the notification at Annexure-B, published in the newspaper on 25-3-2010 imposing the condition relating to leasing the property with a minimum period of 15 years with a renewal clause of 15 years. The second respondent is directed to consider the application filed by the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law keeping in mind the aforementioned observations. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.