Karnataka High Court Sri Arjun Gowda T M vs Union Of India on 14 June, 2019 1 DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.29295/2014(GMRES) BETWEEN: SRI ARJUN GOWDA T. M., S/O SRI MAHADEVGOWDA T. P., AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, RESIDING AT TAGADUR VILLAGE, BILIGERE HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT571 119. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SRINIVASA D. C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM & NATURAL GAS, SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI110 001. 2. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., BY ITS HEAD OFFICER, LPG DISTRIBUTOR SELECTION CELL (KARNATAKA) "DU PARC TRINITY",7TH FLOOR, NO.17, M.G ROAD, BANGALORE560 001. 2 3. SRI T. G. BALU, S/O LATE JAVARANAIKA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 4. SRI VENUGOPAL, S/O LATE T. M. BASAVARAJA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, THE RESPONDENT No.3 & 4 ARE RESIDING AT TAGADUR VILLAGE, BILIGERE HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT571 119 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M. BIRDY AIYAPPA, CGC FOR R1; SMT. SMITHA. N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI CHETANA K., ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 14.06.2019 NOTICE TO R3 AND R4 IS DISPENSED WITH) ...... THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMUNICATION LETTER DATED 3.3.2014 WRITTEN BY THE RESPONDENT2 TO THE PETITIONER INFORMING THE INELIGIBILITY OF THE PETITIONER FOR AWARD OF RAJIV GANDHI GRAMEEN LPG VITARAK OF THE RESPONDENT2 VIDE ANNEXURED. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: 3 ORDER The petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the impugned communication/letter dated 03.03.2014, vide AnnexureD, issued by the second respondent informing the petitioner that his candidature has not been found to be eligible for Rajiv Gandhi Grameena LPG Vitaraka ('RGGLV' for short) as he does not have godown or land for godown as per eligibility criteria. 2. The respondent No.2 had given paper publication inviting applications from the eligible persons for award of RGGLV in various villages of the State of Karnataka. In response to the said publication, on 31.12.2013, the petitioner applied for award of RGGLV, in time. The second respondent, without verifying the documents submitted by the petitioner, issued the impugned letter stating that the petitioner is ineligible for award, as he is not having godown/land for godown required as per 4 the criteria. On 26.06.2014, the second respondent conducted verification of original documents of respondent Nos.3 and 4 whose applications were also rejected earlier by the second respondent. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 4. Sri Srinivasa, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned communication of the second respondent rejecting the petitioner's application on the ground that the petitioner does not have godown or land for godown as per eligibility criteria is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. He contended that, in terms of the notification published in Vijaya Karnataka, Kannada daily, it is not necessary that the applicant alone should have land or godown. Even if the family members of the petitioner are owning the land, it is sufficient. 5 Accordingly, petitioner's father permitted the petitioner to apply for RGGLV. The petitioner submitted the Tax Demand Register of property No.1339/2 measuring 106 x 68½ feet standing in the name of the petitioner's father to show the availability of required land for the purpose of storage of LPG cylinders of 5000 kg, which fulfils the eligibility criteria fixed by the second respondent i.e., land measuring 21x26 mtrs. The second respondent, arbitrarily, proceeded to issue the impugned letter, without even conducting spot mahazar to come to the conclusion that the petitioner is ineligible. Therefore, the action of the second respondent cannot be sustained and hence, sought to allow the writ petition. 5. Per contra, Smt.Smitha for Sri Chetana, learned counsel for the second respondent, sought to justify the impugned order and contended that it is specifically state