Dismissed

B D Kumar v. Union of India

Karnataka HC25 Aug 2021WP/8482/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL challenging the allotment of a retail petrol outlet by Indian Oil Corporation to specific individuals was dismissed. The Court held the petition to be sponsored litigation by the aggrieved petitioner. Citing statutory safeguards under the Petroleum Act and Rules, the Court refused to interfere with the authorities' finding that the selection process was transparent and the location approv

What did the court decide?

None. The writ petition was dismissed as a matter of PIL.

B D Kumar Vs Union of India — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.8482/2021 (GM-RES-PIL)

¶9

BETWEEN

¶10

1 . B D KUMAR S/O LATE DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 59, EX GRAMA PANCHAYATH MEMBER BHATHRAHALLI VILLAGE BHATHRAHALLI GRAMAPANCHAYATH KUNIGAL TAUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101

¶11

2 . B.G.VENKATESH S/O LATE GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 43, BHATHRAHALLI VILLAGE BHATHRAHALLI GRAMAPANCHAYATH KUNIGAL TAUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101

¶12

3 . SMT.SHASHIKALA W/O KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 49, EX GRAMA PANCHAYATH MEMBER, BHATHRAHALLI VILLAGE BHATHRAHALLI GRAMAPAMCHAYATH KUNIGAL TAUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101

¶13

4 . U.B.BETTASWAMY S/O BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 59, BHATHRAHALLI VILLAGE

¶14

¶15

BHATHRAHALLI GRAMAPANCHAYATH KUNIGAL TAUK

¶16

TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101.

¶17

5 . DARSHAN KUMAR B.K. S/O KUMAR AGED ABOUT 23, BHATHRAHALLI VILLAGE BHATHRAHALLI GRAMAPANCHAYATH KUNIGAL TAUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101

¶18

6 . V.SHIVASHENKAR S/O VENKATARAMANA AGED ABOUT 55, DISTRICT CONVENERS DALIT SANGARSHA SAMITHI TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101

¶19

7 . N.RAJESH S/O NANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 48, PRESS REPORTER, KUNIGAL TOWN, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101

¶20

8 . CHIKKAGANGADARAIAH S/O CHIKKABAIRAIAH AGED ABOUT 26, HALONAHALLI VILLAGE BHATHRAHALLI GRAMAPANCHAYATH KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101

¶21

9 . NAGARAJU S/O RANGASOMAIAH AGED ABOUT 49, GRAMAPANCHAYATH MEMBER KAMANAHALLI GOLLARAHATTI BHATHRAHALLI GRAMAPANCHAYATH, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101

¶22

10 . SOMASHEKARAIAH S/O LATE GANGAIAH

¶23

¶24

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS KEMPASHANEPALYA BHATHRAHALLI GRAMAPANCHAYATH KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101

¶25

11 . GANGARANGAIAH

¶26

S/O RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 43, TALUK PANCHAYATH MEMBER MADIKEHALLI VILLAGE BHATHRAHALLI GRAMAPANCHAYATH KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101

¶27

12 . LAKSHMANA S/O JUNJAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 BHATHRAHALLI GRAMAPANCHAYATH KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101

¶28

13 . GOVINDAIAH

¶29

S/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 VADDARAKUPPE VILLAGE BHATHRAHALLI GRAMAPANCHAYATH KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101

¶30

14 . D RAMESH

¶31

S/O KAMBAR DASAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 WORKING AS PRESS REPORTER KURADIHALLI VILLAGE KUNIGAL TALUK

¶32

TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101

¶33

15 . K M KAMTHARAJU

¶34

S/O MUDLIGIRIGOWDA EX. GRAMAPANCHAYATH MEMBER BHATHRAHALLI GRAMAPANCHAYATH KURADAHALLI KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101

¶35

¶36

16 . NAGARAJU

¶37

S/O GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 44, KURADUHALLI VILLAGE BHATHRAHALLI GRAMAPANCHAYATH KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101

¶38

17 . RAMESH S/O NANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RAMANAHALLI VILALGE BHATHRAHALLI GRAMAPANCHAYATH KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101

¶39

18 . RAMANNA S/O DASAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 KURADUHALLI DAKHALE RAMANAHALLI

¶40

BHATHRAHALLI GRAMAPANCHAYATH KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101

¶41

19 . B S BAIRAPPA

¶42

S/O LATE SHIVALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 BAKTARAHALLI VILLAGE BHATHARAHALLI GRAMAPANCHAYTH KUNIGAL TLAUK TUMKUR DISTRICT 572 101

¶43

20 . LAKSHMAMMA

¶44

W/O BAIRAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 BAKTARAHALLI VILALGE BHATHARAHALLI GRAMAPANCHAYTH KUNIGAL TLAUK TUMKUR DISTRICT 572 101

¶45

21 . RAGHU B R

¶46

S/O B H RANGASWAMYYA AGED ABOUT 45 BAKTARAHALLI VILALGE BHATHARAHALLI GRAMAPANCHAYTH KUNIGAL TLAUK

¶47

¶48

TUMKUR DISTRICT 572 101

¶49

22 . B K JANARDANA S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 BAKTARAHALLI VILALGE BHATHARAHALLI GRAMAPANCHAYTH KUNIGAL TLAUK TUMKUR DISTRICT 572 101

¶50

23 . D N RAMANNA S/O LATE NARASAPPA EX GRAMAPANCHAYATH MEMBER DODDAMALAVADI BHATHARAHALLI GRAMAPANCHAYATH KUNIGAL TALUK

¶51

TUMKUR DISTRICT 572 101

¶52

24 . L RAMANNA S/O LATE LINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 KAMANAHALLI

¶53

EX. TALUK PANCHAYATH MEMBER BHATHARAHALLI GRAMAPANCHAYTH KUNIGAL TLAUK TUMKUR DISTRICT 572 101

¶54

25 . LEELAVATHI W/O HONNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 37 KAREKALPALYA BHATHARAHALLI GRAMAPANCHAYTH KUNIGAL TLAUK TUMKUR DISTRICT 572 101

¶55

26 . HONNEGOWDA S/O HONNAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 KAREKALPALYA BHATHRAHALLI GRAMAPANCHAYATH KUNIGAL TLAUK TUMKRU DISTRICT 572 101

¶56

27 . HALIMABEE S/O GOUSMOYUDDIN AGED ABOUT 28,

¶57

¶58

DODDAMALAVADI VILLAGE BHATHRAHALLI GRAMAPANCHAYATH KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101

¶59

28 . GOUSMOYUDDIN S/O MOHAMAD ISMAIL AGED ABOUT 32, DODDAMALAVADI VILLAGE BHATHRAHALLI GRAMAPANCHAYATH KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101

¶60

29 . CHEVUVAIAH S/O CHELUVAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 KODIHALLIPALYA VILLAGE BHATHRAHALLI GRAMAPANCHAYATH KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101

¶61

30 . RANGASWAMY S/O GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS BAKTARAHALLI VILLAGE BHATHRAHALLI GRAMAPANCHAYATH KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101

¶62

...PETITIONERS

¶63

(BY SRI.RAGHAVENDRA N., ADV.)

¶64

AND

¶65

1 . UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS 'A' WING SHASTRI RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶66

2 . INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.G9, ALI, YAVAR JUNG MARG

¶67

¶68

BANDRA (EAST) MUMBAI-400 051 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN

¶69

3 . INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED MYSORE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, NO.L35/A, 1^ST FLOOR B.N.ROAD, MYSORE TRADE CENTRE OPP. KSRTC BUS STAND MYSORE-570 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER

¶70

4 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101

¶71

5 . THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ASHOK NAGAR, B.H.ROAD TUMAKURU-572 102

¶72

6 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101

¶73

7 . THE TAHSILDAR OFFICE OF TAHSILDAR KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 130

¶74

8 . ASSISTATNT CONTROLLER OF LEGAL METROLOGY DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL METROLOGY TUMKUR CIRCLE TUMKUR DISTRICT

¶75

9 . ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES SIDDARAMESWARA LAYOUT SGSTO 175 TUMKUR

¶76

¶77

10 . JOINT DIRECTOR OFFICE OF JOINT DIRECTOR FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARMENT NO.205, 2^ND FLOOR MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA TUMAKURU-572 101

¶78

11 . THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BHAKTHARAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 120

¶79

12 . SMT GURAMMA

¶80

W/O LATE ANKAIAH MAJOR IN AGE KURUDIHALLI VILLAGE BHAKTHARAHALLI POST KOTTHEGERE HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 120

¶81

13 . SMT ASHA W/O KARTHIK MAJOR IN AGE KURUDIHALLI VILLAGE BHAKTHARAHALLI POST KOTTHEGERE HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 120

¶82

...RESPONDENTS

¶83

(BY SRI.DEVARAJ L., ADV. FOR SRI.MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, CGC FOR R1 SRI.SANTOSH NAGARALE, ADV. FOR R3 SRI.VIJAYAKUMAR A PATIL, AGA FOR R4 TO R10)

¶84

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER BEARING NUMBER Bha Graa Pam/ /2021 DATED 25.01.2021 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.11 AND ORDER BEARING NO. ARM/2/CR.13/2021 (64538) DATED 03.03.2021 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4, THE TRUE COPIES OF WHICH ARE PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-G AND H AND ETC.

¶85

¶86

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶87

ORDER

¶88

The present petition has been filed as a PIL by one B.D.Kumar S/o late Doddaiah along with as many as 29 other persons. The contention of the petitioners is that the respondent-Indian Oil Corporation Limited is establishing a retail outlet in Sy.No.87/3 measuring 0.20 guntas situated at Kurudihalli village, Kothagere Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumakuru District.

¶89

It has been stated by the petitioners that an advertisement was issued inviting applications on 25.11.2018 and large number of persons have applied for allotment of retail outlet and finally letter of intent (LOI) has been issued in favour of respondents-12 and 13. The contention of the petitioners is that the petrol pump has been established in an accident prone zone and there will be a serious threat of injury to the villagers and establishment of petrol pump is violative under Article 21 of the Constitution of India keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶90

¶91

Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to the judgment delivered in the case of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board v. Kenchappa reported in 2006 7 SCC 371 as well as in the case of Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India reported in (1996) 5 SCC 647 .

¶92

Learned counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation Limited has argued before this Court that the petitioners have not come with clean hands. He has straightaway drawn the attention of this Court towards the representation, which is on record dated 25.02.2021. The english translation of the

¶93

representation is reproduced as under:

¶94

"To

¶95

The Chairman/Panchayathi Development Officer Village Panchayathi Bhaktarahalli

¶96

Sir,

¶97

Subject: Representation of the Public and Villagers of Kududihalli, Bhaktarahalli, Vaddarakuppe of Bhaktarahalli Village Panchayathi, Kothagere Hobli, Kunigal Taluk and Kodipalya of Kothagere Village Panchayath.

¶98

It is hereby submitted that, from India Oil Corporation Company, one petrol bunk is reserved for Scheduled Caste within 3 km limits from Vaddarakuppe Village, the same has been granted to Asha P., resident of Kunigal Town. She is not having any land records in her name in Sy.No.19/1, measuring 1.00.00.00 acre is converted land in the name of Shashikala D/r B.D.Kumar, Vaddarakuppe, B.D.Kumar S/o Doddaiah has applied for Petrol bunk, in spite of having all the

¶99

¶100

records, without granting the petrol bunk to him, illegally granted the petrol bunk in the name who is not having any records. The proposed petrol bunk is in Sy.No.87/1, measuring 1.22.00.00 stands in the name of Guramma W/o Ankaiah, it is not converted land. Without granting to the local residents, granted in the name of the residents of town. The main road of the above said area is accidental zone and 10-12 persons were died in road accidents. As it is an accidental zone from Keship constructed the hump and installed solar. In between Sy.No.87/1A measuring 1.22.00.00 guntas, 0.19.00.00 acres Govt. B.Kharab land is existing. Besides the land i.e. on the Northern side there is a big gas line, besides the same Hemavathi Nala is passing. And if the deep pit constructed for storage of petrol and diesel, the nala will be damaged and chances of breaking.

¶101

Therefore, we request your kindself to please verify all the above points and request to not to issue the N.O.C. for establishment of Petrol bunk as it will cause danger to the public.

¶102

Thanking you.

¶103

Date: 25/2/2021 Place: Bhaktarahalli"

¶104

The aforesaid representation reveals that

¶105

respondents-12 and 13 have been allotted retail outlet and Sri B.D.Kumar has also applied for a petrol pump and instead of allotting to B.D.Kumar, allotment has been made in favour of respondents-12 and 13, meaning thereby petitioner No.1 who was also a candidate in the process of selection being aggrieved by his non selection has now filed the PIL and his contention is that petrol pump is being established in an accident prone zone. The allotment of petrol pump by the

¶106

¶107

Indian Oil Corporation is always done through a transparent process and the guidelines have been issued by the Indian Oil Corporation keeping in view the instructions issued by the Indian Oil Corporation, Ministry of India, from time to time. The guidelines issued by the Indian Oil Corporation dated 24.11.2018 are on record and the process of allotment has been done strictly in consonance with the guidelines issued by the Oil Company. It is noteworthy to mention that once the oil company takes a decision to allot a petrol pump, Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 1976, provides for grant of various No objection Certificate (NOC) as well as the licence from the Chief Controller or Controller of explosives.

¶108

The NOCs are granted keeping in view Rule 144

¶109

of the Petroleum Rules, 1976 and the same reads as under:

¶110

"144. No objection certificate-

¶111

Where the licensing authority is the Chief Controller or the Controller of Explosives, as the case may be, an applicant for a new licence other than a licence in '[Form Ill, IX, XV or 'XVII shall apply to the District Authority with two copies of the site-plan showing the location of the premises 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 to the applicant who shall forward it to the licensing authority with his application Form VIII.

¶112

Every certificate issued by the District Authority uil(,ler sub-rule (1) shall be accompanied by a copy of

¶113

¶114

the plan of the proposed site duly endorsed by him in under his official seal.

¶115

The Chief Controller or the Controller of Explosives, 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.

¶116

If the District Authority, either on a reference being made to him or otherwise, intimates to the Chief Controller or the Controller of Explosives, 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."

¶117

The NOCs are issued keeping in view the Petroleum Act, 1934 read with the Petroleum Rules, 1976 and various orders as well as other executive instructions issued on the subject.

¶118

It has been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for Indian Oil Corporation that NOC has been issued by the authorities and proper licence has also been issued for running the retail outlet after following due process of law.

¶119

In the considered opinion of this Court, the petition is nothing but a sponsored litigation at the behest of petitioner No.1 and the authorities are certainly the best judge to identify the location and to establish the retail

¶120

¶121

outlet. The Petroleum Act and the Petroleum Rules provides for a safeguard to ensure that the retail outlet is not established in an accident prone zone area in a locality contrary to the statutory provisions. Resultantly, this Court does not find any reason to allow the present PIL and it is accordingly dismissed.

¶122

Pending IAs., if any stand disposed of.

¶123

No order as to costs.

¶124

SD/JUDGE

¶125

SD/JUDGE

¶126

B D Kumar v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B D Kumar v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri B v Anandalwar Vs the Endowment Commissioner

T v Neelakantan Vs Ministry of Personnel

Cauvery Sene Vs State of Karnataka

K C Niranjanamurthy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K Ashwath Vs State of Karnataka

Channaiah Vs State of Karnataka