Dismissed

Jagadeesha M S v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Oct 2021WP/15573/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed as PIL challenging the allotment of a petrol retail outlet to a Scheduled Caste woman was dismissed. The Court found no statutory violation in the land conversion or licensing procedure and termed the petition frivolous.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 1.00 lakh directed to be paid to the Karnataka Advocate Clerks' Welfare Fund.

Jagadeesha M S Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.15573/2021 (KLR-RES-PIL)

¶9

BETWEEN

¶10

JAGADEESHA M.S. S/O.SUBBARAYIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, NO.173, 1^ST BLOCK, B.M.ROAD, GUNDU RAO EXTENSION, KUSHALNAGARA, KODAGU DISTRICT 571 234.

¶11

... PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI SARAVANA S., ADV. FOR SRI D.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADV.)

¶13

AND:

¶14

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS VIDHANASOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001

¶15

2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DC OFFICE COMPLEX, MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT 571 201

¶16

3 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MADIKERI DIVISION, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEX, MADIKERI-571 201

¶17

¶18

4 . THE TAHSILDAR OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR, SOMWARPET TALUK, SOMWARPET-571 236

¶19

5 . INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED MYSORE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, NO.L 36/A, 1^ST FLOOR, B.N.ROAD, MYSORE TRADE CENTRE, OPP. KSRTC BUS STAND, MYSORE-570 001

¶20

6 . SMT P.Y.MALINI W/O.YADHAVA KUMAR P.A., DUBARE ROAD, NANJARAYAPATNA, KUSHALANAGARA HOBLI, SOMWARPETE TQ, NANJARAYAPATNA, KODAGU-571 234

¶21

7 . THE UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, TRANSPORT BHAVAN NO.1, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110 001 REPT. BY ITS SECRETARY

¶22

... RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI VIJAYKUMAR A PATIL., AGA FOR R1 TO R4)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF APPROPRIATE NATURE DIRECTING THE PETROL COMPANIES INCLUDING THE RESPONDENT NO. 5 COMPANY TO FOLLOW STRICT COMPLIANCE OF THE GUIDELINES FRAMED BY THE MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS AND DEPARTMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, AND OTHER DEPARTMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF STATE OF KARNATAKA ISSUED FROM TIME TO TIME TO BE COMPLIED WITH IN LETTER AND SPIRIT AND TO FURTHER DIRECT UNION OF INDIA, STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ITS CONCERNED DEPARTMENTS / CORPORATIONS TO ENSURE STRICT COMPLIANCE OF THE POLICY AND GUIDELINES.

¶25

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The petitioner before this Court has filed the present writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) projecting himself to be a social worker carrying out the business of sale of agricultural produce. Not even a single instance of so called social work is reflected in the present PIL except for making a bald statement that he is a social worker. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited in establishing a retail outlet of petrol and other products.

¶29

The facts of the case reveal that respondent No.6 belongs to Scheduled Caste. She has applied for the grant of dealership in response to an advertisement issued by Indian Oil Corporation Limited. After following the due process of law, a letter of intent was issued in her favour. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited after verifying all the documents submitted by respondent No.6 has granted permission for establishing a retail outlet. As the retail outlet was required to be established, an application was submitted by

¶30

¶31

respondent No.6 on 10.01.2020 for the grant of permission for conversion of land of 25 cents. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kodagu, Madikeri District has forwarded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Kodagu on 20.01.2020 and the Tahsildar has carried out an exhaustive survey of land and has submitted a statutory report on 19.02.2020 to the Assistant Commissioner, Madikeri Sub Division, Madikeri and finally, the land was converted by an order dated 21.06.2021 for establishing the retail outlet. The order in respect of the conversion which has been passed under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, makes it very clear that all the formalities were observed and after following the prescribed procedure, a detailed and exhaustive order has been passed imposing certain conditions.

¶32

This Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid order and has not been able to notice the illegalities/irregularities in the order passed by the competent authority, i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Kodagu, Madikeri District. Two notices are on record i.e. dated 06.11.2020 and 27.11.2020. The legal notices which are the part of the present PIL reflects that even before the conversion order

¶33

¶34

could be passed, the learned counsels were engaged to serve legal notice to the Deputy Commissioner to ensure that the retail outlet is not opened.

¶35

It is really a shocking state of affairs that, even after 75 years of Independence, when a retail outlet is being allotted to a person belonging to the scheduled caste, all efforts are being made to ensure that she does not succeed in operating the retail outlet. No violation of any statutory provisions of law has been brought to the notice of this Court and there appears to be a calculated move to ensure that the lady is deprived of her legitimate Constitutional Rights, guaranteed to her under Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The establishment of a retail outlet is governed under the statutory provisions as contained under the Petroleum Act, 1934 as well as the Rules framed thereunder.

¶36

Rule 144 of the Rules reads as under:

¶37

144. No-objection certificate.—(1) Where the licensing authority is the Chief Controller or the Controller, as the case may be, an applicant for a new licence other than a licence in Forms III, XI, XVII, XVIII, or XIX shall apply to the District Authority with two copies of the site-plan showing the location of the premises

¶38

¶39

proposed to be licensed for a certificate to the effect that there is no objection, to the applicant receiving a licence for the site proposed and the District Authority shall, if he sees no objection, grant such certificate 66[in the proforma specified in sub-rule (7),] to the applicant who shall forward it to the licensing authority with his application Form IX.

¶40

[Note.—The licensing authority shall accept the no objection certificate within a period of three years from the date of its issue for considering grant of licence.]

¶41

(2) Every certificate issued by the District Authority under sub-rule (1) shall be accompanied by a copy of the plan of the proposed site duly endorsed by him under his official seal.

¶42

(3) The Chief Controller or the Controller as the case may be, may refer an application not accompanied by certificate granted under sub-rule (1) to the District Authority for his observations.

¶43

(4) If the District Authority, either on a reference being made to him or otherwise, intimates to the Chief Controller or the Controller as the case may be, that any licence which has been applied for should not, in his opinion, be granted, such licence shall not be issued without the sanction of the Central Government.

¶44

(5) The District Authority shall complete his inquiry for issuing No OBJECTION CERTIFICATE (NOC) under sub-rule (1) and shall complete the action for

¶45

¶46

issue or refusal of the NOC, as the case may be, as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months form the date of receipt of application by him.

¶47

[(6) Where the location of storage of petroleum is within the notified area of a Port or Airport under the control of the State, or establishment of Indian Space Research Organisation or Department of Atomic Energy, No Objection Certificate from the District Authority referred to in sub-rules (1) to (5) shall not be required:

¶48

Provided that consent for establishment of petroleum storage from the competent authority of concerned notified area or head of the establishment, as the case may be, is obtained.]

¶49

[(7) The district authority shall issue a no objection certificate in the following pro forma, namely—

¶50

Pro forma

¶51

No Objection Certificate

[See Rule 144]

No…………….

Date…………

Subject : No objection certificate

¶56

With reference to the application No.…….dated ……..submitted by………….and in pursuance of Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, there is no objection for granting licence under the Petroleum Rules, 2002 to Shri/Smt./M/s. ……………

¶57

¶58

address………………… for storage of petroleum products in their premises at Survey No……….…../Gat No…….…/Khasra No.……..………Plot No……..…., Village…………Taluka/Tehsil………….…District…………..

¶59

State……………………………as shown in the site plan duly endorsed and enclosed herewith.

¶60

(1) The following particulars have been considered while issuing this no objection certificate, that—

¶61

(a) possession of the site by the applicant is lawful and authorisation from land owner or lease holder for developing premises under these rules for storage of petroleum products;

¶62

(b) interest of public, specially the facilities like schools, hospitals or proximity to places of public assembly and the mitigating measures, if any, is provided;

¶63

(c) traffic density and impact on traffic;

¶64

(d) conformity of proposal to the local or area

¶65

development planning;

¶66

(e) accessibility of the site to fire tenders in case of emergency and preparedness of fire services for combating the emergencies;

¶67

(f) genuineness of purpose.

¶68

(g) any other matter pertinent to public safety;

¶69

Signature of the district authority issuing no objection certificate with his office seal (in towns having a Commissioner of Police, the Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner of Police and for any other place the District Magistrate)

¶70

¶71

Note.—The licensing authority shall accept the no objection certificate within a period of three years from the date of its issue for considering grant of licence.]

¶72

The aforesaid statutory provision of law makes it very clear that all safeguards are provided under the Petroleum Act and Petroleum Rules, and no objection certificate is issued after conducting an exhaustive inquiry thereto and after grant of various no objections certificates, from various authorities. The petitioner who claims to be a social worker has not been able to point out violation of any statutory provisions of law in the matter. The present petition appears to be a frivolous litigation. A reference has been made to certain documents and the guidelines framed by Indian Road Congress which are not having the statutory force and after following the guidelines of Indian Oil Corporation Limited, the retail outlet has been allotted to a lady belonging to Scheduled Caste. Resultantly, no case is made out in the matter for interference. The present writ petition is nothing but a frivolous public interest litigation and deserves to be dismissed.

¶73

¶74

Resultantly, the present writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.1.00 lakh. The petitioner shall pay the cost of Rs.1.00 lakh to the Karnataka Advocate Clerks' Welfare Fund within a period of thirty days from today. In case the aforesaid cost is not paid by the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner, Kodagu, shall recover the same as the arrears of land revenue and shall deposit the same with Karnataka Advocate Clerks' Welfare Fund. The Deputy Commissioner shall file a compliance report before the Registrar General of this Court within a period of 90 days from today.

¶75

SD/ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶76

SD/-

¶77

Jagadeesha M S v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagadeesha M S v. the State of Karnataka

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

Smt P Gowramma Vs the State of Karnataka

M S Ambresh Kencha Vs Election Commission of India

Sri Krishna Shetty Vs the Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

Rewabe Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri N Shivalingaiah Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Malleshwara Stone Crushers Vs the State of Karnataka