BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10867-DB
WA No. 200313 of 2024
C/W WA No. 200283 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030125362024



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA



KALABURAGI BENCH

TH
DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO

WRIT APPEAL NO.200313 OF 2024 (LB-RES)

C/W

WRIT APPEAL NO.200283 OF 2024 (LB-RES)


IN WA No.200313/2024


BETWEEN:

BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1913,
(A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE),

HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.4 AND 6,
CURRIMBHOY ROAD, BALLARD ESTATE,
MUMBAI-400 001,

REPRESENTED BY A POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER

A. RAMSANKAR,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
OCC: TERRITORY MANAGER (RETAIL),
GULBARGA TERRITORY,
BPCL, KIADB INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT,
PHASE NO.2, NANDUR, TQ. AND DIST. KALABURGI.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. AMRESH S. ROJA, ADVOCATE)




Digitally signed
by B NAGAVENI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10867-DB
WA No. 200313 of 2024
C/W WA No. 200283 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030125362024



AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001.

2. THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, BIDAR,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAYA T.R., AGA FOR R1;
SRI. GOURISH S. KHASHAMPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 08.11.2024 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION
200301/2018 BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL.

IN WA NO. 200283/2024

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. RAJSHRI SRIKANTH SWAMY,
W/O SRIKANTH SWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O NOUBAD ROAD, BIDAR - 585402.

2. SRI SAI PETROLEUM,
BPCL DEALER,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SMT. RAJSHRI SRIKANTH SWAMY
W/O SRIKANTH SWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, NOUBAD ROAD,
BIDAR - 585402.
...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. GANESH S. KALBURGI, ADVOCATE)

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10867-DB
WA No. 200313 of 2024
C/W WA No. 200283 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030125362024



AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU-01.

2. CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
BIDAR DISTRICT-585401,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER.

3. BIDAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
BIDAR, REPRESENTED BY ITS
COMMISSIONER-585401.

4. SRI. MANOHAR NAGRAJ,
COMMISSIONER,
CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
BIDAR DISTRICT-585401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAYA T.R., AGA FOR R1 & R4;
SRI. GOURISH S. KHASHAMPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI P.S. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3)


THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW
THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED
08.11.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN
WP NO.200302/2018 AND TO PASS ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE ORDER AS MAY BE DEEMED NECESSARY IN
THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.


THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10867-DB
WA No. 200313 of 2024
C/W WA No. 200283 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030125362024



ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)


1. The appellant-BPCL in W.A.No.200313/2024 has filed
the writ appeal challenging the order dated
08.11.2024 passed in W.P.No.200301/2018 and the
appellants-M/s Sai Petroleum i.e., dealer filed
W.A.No.200283/2024 challenging the order dated
08.11.2024 passed in W.P.No.200302/2018.

2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of these appeals are as
under:
The appellant - Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited
(BPCL) notified retail outlet (Petrol Pump) and invited
applications for dealership. In response to the same,
dealer - M/s Sai Petroleum applied and got the
dealership of retail outlet (petrol pump) and obtained
the necessary conversion order etc., The nature of
dealership i.e., retail outlet (petrol pump) is a

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10867-DB
WA No. 200313 of 2024
C/W WA No. 200283 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030125362024


company controlled retail outlet. The appellant-BPCL
commissioned the retail outlet and started running the
outlet in 2009 through authorised licensee/ dealer i.e.,
M/s Sai Petroleum catering essential services to the
public at large. In regard to construction permission,
the appellant-BPCL drafted a requisition dated
07.02.2008 and handed over to the dealer i.e. M/s.
Sai Petroleum for further steps to obtain the
permission and it could be seen from the averments
made in para-7 of the writ petition that the appellant
by oversight did not made averment i.e., the draft
requisition dated 07.02.2008 is handed over to the
dealer.

3. Respondent No.2-City Municipal Council, Bidar, (for
short, ‘CMC’) exhibiting high handedness demolished a
portion of the retail outlet, despite the retaliation by
the dealer contemplating that in case of an illegal and
unscientific demolition, it will result in fire etc., since

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10867-DB
WA No. 200313 of 2024
C/W WA No. 200283 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030125362024


the retail outlet is part of highly inflammable
explosive.

4. The appellant-BPCL submits that the demolition
resulted in financial loss of Rs.35,00,000/- and
therefore, the dealer made a complaint to the New
police station. Despite lodging the complaint, the
concerned police authorities did not take any steps.
The appellant-BPCL came to know that demolition of a
portion of the retail outlet is the result of order dated
12.01.2018 passed by respondent No.2-CMC. Being
aggrieved, the appellant-BPCL filed a writ petition in
W.P.No.200301 of 2018 and also dealer filed writ
petition in W.P.No.200302 of 2018.

5. Respondent No.2 - CMC filed statement of objections
denying the averments made in the Memorandum of
Writ Petitions. It is contended that on 03.04.2007, the
Deputy Commissioner has passed an order in respect
of conversion of land wherein imposing certain

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10867-DB
WA No. 200313 of 2024
C/W WA No. 200283 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030125362024


conditions by stating that the owner of the land has to
comply with all the norms which are prescribed under
the local laws. It is contended that the norms have not
been complied with. Accordingly, it is contended that
the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on
03.04.2007 is just and proper. Learned Single Judge,
after hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
dismissed the writ petitions vide order dated
08.11.2024 directing the Additional Registrar General
of this Court to initiate proceedings against the
petitioners therein under Sections 177, 181, 193, 196,
199, 200, 209 of IPC along with Section 195 read with
Section 340 of Cr.P.C, since the offences have been
committed prior to BNS/BNSS coming into force,
within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of
that order.

6. Heard Sri. K. N. Phanindra, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellant-BPCL in
W.A.No.200313/2024, Sri. Ganesh S. Kalburgi,

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10867-DB
WA No. 200313 of 2024
C/W WA No. 200283 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030125362024


learned counsel appearing for the appellants in
W.A.No.200283 of 2024, learned Additional
Government Advocate and Sri.Gourish
S.Khashampur, learned counsel for respondent No.2-
City Municipal Council.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-BPCL in
W.A.No.200313 of 2024 submits that during the
course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants in W.A.No.200283 of 2024 produced the
copy of requisition which discloses that the said copy
was handed over to the City Municipal Council, Bidar.
He submits that the appellants in W.P.No.200283 of
2024 have taken the appellant in W.P.No.200313 of
2024 by surprise. He also submits that the appellant-
BPCL has not concocted any document i.e. requisition
letter and the learned Single Judge has directed the
Additional Registrar General of this Court to initiate
Criminal proceedings against the appellants. He also
submits that the appellant-BPCL has produced the

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10867-DB
WA No. 200313 of 2024
C/W WA No. 200283 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030125362024


original copy of the requisition dated 07.02.2008 vide
Annexure-E which does not indicate the seal of
respondent No.2-Commissioner, City Municipal
Council to show that the copy was served on the
Commissioner. He submits that the said document
has been got forged by the appellants in W.A.
No.200283 of 2024. Hence, on these grounds, he
prays to allow the appeal to the extent of initiating
criminal proceedings against the appellant-BPCL.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants in
W.A.No.200283 of 2024 submits that the appellants
have not forged the said requisition. Hence, on this
ground, he prays to allow the writ appeal.
Per contra
9. , learned counsel for the respondents has
supported the impugned order. Hence, prays to
dismiss the writ appeals.

10. Perused the records and considered the submissions
of the learned counsel for the parties.

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10867-DB
WA No. 200313 of 2024
C/W WA No. 200283 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030125362024



11. It is an undisputed fact that appellant-BPCL notified
the Retail Outlet (Petrol pump) and invited
applications. In response to the same appellant -
M/s. Sai Petroleum had applied and got the
dealership of the Retail Outlet. The appellant-BPCL
drafted a requisition dated 07.02.2008 and handed
over to the dealer for further steps to obtain the
permission. M/s Sai Petroleum has submitted the
same before the Commissioner, City Municipal
Council, Bidar for necessary approval and obtained
an acknowledgment and the same is furnished before
the learned Single Judge. Respondent No.2-CMC
exhibiting highhandedness demolished a portion of
the retail outlet. The appellants in both the appeals
have challenged the order dated 12.01.2018 passed
by the Commissioner, CMC, Bidar. The learned Single
Judge while hearing the writ petitions directed the
learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 - CMC
to produce the original records. The learned Single

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10867-DB
WA No. 200313 of 2024
C/W WA No. 200283 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030125362024


Judge on examination of the original records has
recorded its findings in paragraphs-11 to 20 which is
extracted hereunder:
“ 11. This is another shocking case of a
litigant trying to abuse the court
process by producing fabricated
documents. The petitioner in WP
No.200301/2018 produced the letter
dated 07.02.2008 at Annexure-E, which
did not indicate any receipt by
respondent No.4. The averments made
in the petition were that all other
permissions were obtained, and
thereafter, construction was put up and
the Petrol Bunk brought into operation.
12. In the petition there is no averment
made as regards deemed sanction of
plan as argued, by producing one other
photocopy of the letter bearing a
rubberstamp of respondent No.4,
allegedly evidencing the receipt thereof
by the respondent No.4 on 04.05.2007
bearing inward No.5634. Admittedly,
there is no plan sanction which has
been granted, it is in that background
that the petitioner relies upon the
alleged deemed sanction of plan.
13. For the purpose of relying on such a
deemed plan sanction, it is required for
the petitioner to establish that, indeed,
such an application for plan sanction

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10867-DB
WA No. 200313 of 2024
C/W WA No. 200283 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030125362024


had been filed, accompanied by the
plan to be sanctioned.
14. As adverted to above, on the basis
of the examination of the inward
register of respondent No.4, it is
categorically seen that the inward
numbers for the month of February,
2008 were in 11,000 series and not
5,000 series, which is the number found
in the letter sought to be relied upon.
Thus, firstly, there is no reference to
any such letter in the register on the
date on which the letter is stated to
have been submitted and received.
Secondly, inward No.5634 is a letter of
one Shivakumar, S/o Veerappa,
submitted on 9.09.2008. The
documents received by the respondents
from 7.02.2008 to 13.02.2008 have
been numbered in 11,000 series. The
documents at inward No.11965-11968
were received on 7.02.2008, the
document bearing inward number
11969 was received on 10.02.2008 and
document bearing inward No.11970
was received on 13.02.2008 and so on.
Thus, neither the number shown in the
letter produced by the petitioner relates
to the said letter nor is such a letter
submitted on the date on which it is
professed to have been submitted.
Thirdly, even the letters which have
been produced, do not evidence any
building plan having been submitted for

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10867-DB
WA No. 200313 of 2024
C/W WA No. 200283 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030125362024


approval since no such plan has been
produced.
15. Thus, it cannot be said that there is
a valid application made by the
petitioners for plan sanction, bringing
into force the deeming provision due to
delay on part of the respondents in
granting such plan sanction.
16. Insofar as the notices are
concerned, the respondents have
produced notices bearing
acknowledgement of the representative
of the petitioners, who is stated to be
one of the employees engaged in the
said Petrol Bunk, the said Petrol Bunk
being an ongoing business, the receipt
by an employee cannot be disbelieved.
That apart, a photograph has also been
produced evidencing that the notices
have been stuck on the wall of the
office of the Petrol Bunk. It would be
rather shocking if, once such a notice
had been affixed to the wall, none of
the persons working in the Petrol Bunk
had seen it or had noticed it.
17. That apart, when anybody were to
walk in to a running Petrol Bunk and
stick anything, let alone a notice, the
workers in the petrol Bunk would
normally have enquired about the same
and thereby been put to notice.
18. Thus, the contention of the learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioners, both

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10867-DB
WA No. 200313 of 2024
C/W WA No. 200283 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030125362024


on account of an application for plan
sanction being made, as also on
account of no notice having been issued
is required to be rejected.
19. It is clearly apparent that the
petitioners have sought to abuse the
process of this Court by trying to
mislead this Court. The conduct of the
petitioners in not replying to the notices
received, not having obtained a plan
sanction and having produced a
fabricated document would require
action to be taken against them. The
submission of the learned counsel for
Respondent No.4 is that would also
initiate appropriate action against the
petitioners for such fabrication, once
such a complaint is filed Respondent
no.4 is directed to place a copy thereof
on the file of this court in these
proceedings.
20. The manner in which the
petitioners have sought to mislead this
Court and tried to abuse the process of
this Court would also require this Court
to take necessary action against the
Petitioners, the Additional Registrar
General, Kalaburagi Bench is directed to
initiate proceedings against the
petitioners under Sections 177, 181,
193, 196, 199, 200, and 209 of the IPC
along with Sections 195 read with 340
of the CrPC, since the offences have
been committed prior to BNS/BNSS

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10867-DB
WA No. 200313 of 2024
C/W WA No. 200283 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030125362024


coming into force, within a period of 30
days from the date of the receipt of this
order.”


12. From the perusal of the order passed by the learned
Single Judge, it clearly discloses that M/s. Sai
Petroleum has furnished copy of the requisition
issued by appellant-BPCL to M/s Sai Petroleum which
discloses that the said requisition was handed over to
the City Municipal Corporation and it bears the
acknowledgement for having served the copy.

13. Appellant-BPCL has produced the original requisition
vide Annexure-E dated 07.02.2008. From the perusal
of the original requisition, it does not disclose
regarding the acknowledgment for having served
copy to the Commissioner, CMC, Bidar. The said
document was produced by M/s Sai Petroleum during
the course of hearing the BPCL was taken by
surprise. We have compared original requisition and
requisition produced by M/s Sai Petroleum. As there

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10867-DB
WA No. 200313 of 2024
C/W WA No. 200283 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030125362024


is no acknowledgment on Annexure-E, there is no
negligence on the part of the BPCL. As the said
document has been produced from the custody of
M/s. Sai Petroleum, it indicates that it has been
forged. The learned Single Judge after examining the
records produced by respondent No.2-CMC has
dismissed the writ petitions, though the learned
Single Judge has recorded a finding that the
appellants have misled the Court and tried to abuse
the process of the Court and directed the Additional
Registrar General of this Court to take necessary
action against the appellants.

14. As observed above, appellant-BPCL has produced the
original requisition. It does not bear the
acknowledgment for having served the requisition to
respondent No.2 CMC, Bidar. The appellants in
W.A.No.200283 of 2024 have played fraud not only
on this Court, but also on the City Municipal
Corporation, Bidar by forging a document. Though

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10867-DB
WA No. 200313 of 2024
C/W WA No. 200283 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030125362024


the learned Single Judge was justified in directing the
Additional Registrar General, Kalaburagi Bench to
initiate proceedings against the appellants in Writ
Appeal No.200283 of 2024, could not have directed
to initiate criminal proceedings against the appellant
in W.A.No.200313 of 2024. To the said extent the
impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge
needs to be modified.

15. Even though appellant-BPCL after coming to know
about the forged document created by M/s Sai
Petroleum, has not taken any steps against M/s. Sai
Petroleum nor lodged any complaint for having
created the forged documents. To that extent,
appellant-BPCL has encouraged M/s Sai Petroleum
for producing the said document before the learned
Single Judge.

16. In view of the above discussion, we proceed to pass
the following:

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10867-DB
WA No. 200313 of 2024
C/W WA No. 200283 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030125362024


ORDER

allowed
i. Writ Appeal No.200313 of 2024 is ,
subject to appellant paying a cost of
Rs.5,00,000/- to the High Court Legal Service
Committee, High Court of Karnataka,
Kalaburagi Bench within four weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

ii. The direction issued by the learned Single
Judge in the writ petitions insofar as taking
action against the petitioners by the learned
Additional Registrar General of this Court is
hereby quashed.

iii. Liberty is reserved to the appellant in
W.A.No.200313/2024 to recover the said
amount from the appellants in
W.A.No.200283/2024.
dismissed
iv. W.A.No.200283 of 2024 is .



Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO)
JUDGE
VNR
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6
Ct:pk