Disposed

Nikhatbanu Faizahmed Pinitod v. the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Karnataka HC22 Jun 2021WP/144163/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the rejection of a petrol pump dealership application on grounds of site non-compliance, the Court disposed of the matter without opining on merits, directing the petitioner to approach the Grievance Redressal Committee within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Disposed reserving liberty to approach Grievance Redressal Committee; petitioner permitted to file complaint within two weeks; Committee directed to consider within four weeks.

Nikhatbanu Faizahmed Pinitod Vs the Indian Oil… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^nd DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.144163/2020 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

NIKHATBANU FAIZAHMED PINITOD AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYED, R/O: JAMKHANDI ROAD, NEAR OIL MILL, KUDACHI VILLAGE, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

(By Sri.VIJAY K NAIK, ADV.) AND THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, KHANAPUR ROAD, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI, R/BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, BELAGAVI DIVISION.

¶11

….Respondent

¶12

(By Sri.SHREEVATSA HEGDE, ADV.)

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A) WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED MAIL LETTER BEARING REF.15451199185397 DATED 21.08.2019 OF THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-M; B) WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO GRANT RETAIL OUTLET DEALERSHIP UNDER GROUP-1 TO THE PETITIONER AT THE LOCATION MENTIONED UNDER SERIAL NO.628(KUDUCHI) VIDE ANNEXURE-B AT THE LAND OFFERED BY HER I.E LAND BEARING SURVEY NO.412+646 HISSA NO.5 MEASURING 1225 SQUARE

¶14

¶15

METRES SITUATED AT JAMKHANDI MIRAJ ROAD, KUDACHI IN RAIBAG TALUK OF BELAGAVI DISTRICT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This writ petition is directed against the letter of communication dated 21.08.2019 issued by the respondent vide Annexure-M whereby his request for allotment of Retail Outlet (Petrol Pump) Dealership has been rejected.

¶19

The case of the petitioner is that as per the notification issued by the respondent for dealership of Petroleum Outlet, he had applied for the same. Since his application was selected through lottery, it has been allotted to the petitioner. Thereafter, the Land Evaluation Committee has visited the spot and found that the land shown by the petitioner is not suitable as per the advertisement stretch. Hence his request has been rejected. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶20

¶21

Sri.Vijay K Naik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the respondent after considering the application filed by the petitioner through lottery has rightly allotted the petrol pump dealership in favour of the petitioner. Since in the notification, they have called application for both Kudachi at Sl.No.628 and also Kudachi SH 20 at Sl.No.635, the petitioner by mistake has applied for Sl.No.635 instead of Sl.No.628. He further contended that in respect of Kudachi at Sl.No.628, so far no application has been received and in fact the petitioner was interested in establishing Petroleum Retail Outlet in Kudachi at S.No.628, therefore, she requested to consider her application for Sl.No.628. Hence, he sought for allowing of the writ petition.

¶22

Per contra, Sri.Shreevatsa Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has contended that in the notification Kudachi at Sl.No.635 has clearly mentioned that on the State Highway 20 between Kudachi Bus Stand and AH 47 JN/SH 20 JN and in the application she has applied specifically for Kudachi at Sl.No.635. When the

¶23

¶24

Land Evaluation Committee visited the spot, it has verified that the land shown by the petitioner is not as per the advertisement stretch and her application has been rejected. He further contended that if the petitioner has any grievance, she has to approach the Grievance Redressal Committee under Clause 18 of the ‘BROCHURE’. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the writ papers.

¶26

In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged Annexure-M wherein the respondent has intimated the petitioner that when the Land Evaluation Committee has visited that site offered by the petitioner on 20.07.2019, they found that the land was not as per the advertisement stretch. Hence, her application was rejected. As per Clause 18 of the ‘BROCHURE’, if any applicants have any grievance, they can approach the Grievance Redressal Committee and the said Committee can consider the same.

¶27

¶28

In view of the above, without expressing any

¶29

opinion on the merits of the case, the above writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Grievance Redressal Committee and the petitioner is permitted to file a complaint before the Grievance Redressal Committee along with necessary document within two weeks from today. If such a complaint is lodged before the Grievance Redressal Committee, the Committee is directed to consider the complaint within four weeks from the date of receipt of the same.

¶30

Accordingly, the above writ petition is disposed of.

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

Kgk

Nikhatbanu Faizahmed Pinitod v. the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nikhatbanu Faizahmed Pinitod v. the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Colaco Amanda Blanche, Vs State of Karnataka

M.Narayanswamy S/O. Lingappa @ Ningappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Labed Veerappa, Since Deceased by His Lrs Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. Barafawala Foods Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S.Barafawala Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Nagalingappa S/O Hanamantappa Kuri Vs the Project Director