Dismissed

Sri. Jayaram Gowda v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Karnataka HC29 Nov 2022WP/15522/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition seeking quashment of a Letter of Intent issued to a Group 1 applicant for a petroleum outlet. The High Court held that because the petitioner belonged to Group 3 and had not offered any land, he could not challenge the allotment to a eligible Group 1 or Group 2 applicant. The writ was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; interim order dissolved; I.A. disposed of.

Sri. Jayaram Gowda Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. — Consumer Protection | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 15522 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO.15522 OF 2021 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. JAYARAM GOWDA S/O RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT KAMBADAHALLI VILLAGE AND HEAD POST, BASARALU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571 416

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. R.S.RAVI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SUNIL K N., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., MYSURU DIVISIONAL OFFICE, No.L-36/A, 1^ST FLOOR, B.N. ROAD, MYSURU TRADE CENTRE, OPP. KSRTC BUS STAND, MYSURU - 570 001

¶13

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

REP: BY ITS CHIEF DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA - 571 401.

¶16

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS,

¶17

¶18

WP No. 15522 of 2021

¶19

MANDYA DIVISION, MANDYA - 571 401.

¶20

SRI. SHANKARA K.C.

¶21

S/O CHIKKADASEGOWDA, AGED MAJOR, R/AT KEELARA VILLAGE,

¶22

MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571 450.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. AMBARISH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SANTOSH NAGARALE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. H.C.SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4, SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE LETTER OF INTENT DATED 24.11.2020 MADE IN NO.M/2019IN005733/KAR/O00298/4305/00052 ISSUED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF RESPONDENT No.4 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The petitioner is before this Court seeking quashment of the letter of intent dated 24.11.2020 issued by respondent

¶29

¶30

WP No. 15522 of 2021

¶31

No.1 in favour of the respondent No.4 and has also sought a consequential direction to respondent No.2 not to issue a No Objection Certificate to respondent No.4 for establishment of a petroleum retail outlet of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited - respondent No.1 herein.

¶32

Heard the learned senior counsel Sri R.S. Ravi

¶33

appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel Sri H.C. Shivaramu representing respondent No.4 and learned counsel Sri Ambarish appearing for Sri Santosh Nagarale learned counsel for respondent No.1.

¶34

3. Sans details, facts in brief, are as follows:

¶35

The petitioner and respondent No.4 generate interest

¶36

pursuant to an advertisement issued by respondent No.1 - Indian Oil Corporation Limited ('Corporation' in short) on 25.11.2018 calling for applications for grant of retail outlet dealerships of petroleum products in various places of Mandya District. The petitioner and respondent No.4 as observed hereinabove applied pursuant to the said advertisement issued on 25.11.2018. The applications of the petitioner and

¶37

¶38

WP No. 15522 of 2021

¶39

respondent No.4 are scrutinized on the documents submitted

¶40

by them along with the said application and respondent No.4 was found to be eligible in terms of the notification issued by the Corporation, and was allotted a petroleum retail outlet by the respondent No.1-Corporation. After the respondent No.4 began to function in the said property in terms of the allotment, the subject petition is filed by the petitioner who was also an applicant pursuant to the notification dated 25.11.2018. This Court while entertaining the petition has granted an interim order as prayed for, which is in subsistence even as on date.

¶41

Learned senior counsel representing the petitioner would contend that if the lands offered in terms of the advertisement which are in Group 1 and Group 2 are found to be not suitable, then Group 3 applicants who have not offered any land should be considered. It is his case, that the land offered by the respondent No.4 does not meet the suitability criteria in terms of the notification. Therefore, application of the petitioner ought to have been considered, but he would admit the fact that the petitioner had not offered any land pursuant to the notification while submitting an application.

¶42

¶43

WP No. 15522 of 2021

¶44

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent

¶45

No.1-Corporation would take this Court through the documents appended to the petition, as well as to the statement of objections to contend that a survey and scrutiny of documents were done and it was found that the land of respondent No.4 fell within the contours of the notification issued and therefore, allotment was made in his favour.

¶46

Learned counsel for respondent No.4 would submit that the petitioner has no locus even to maintain the petition as he has not offered any land pursuant to the advertisement. Therefore, he cannot challenge the allotment made in favour of respondent No.4.

¶47

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

¶48

The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute and are therefore, not reiterated. The notification comes to be issued on 25.11.2018 is a matter on record. Both the petitioner and respondent No.4 applied pursuant to the said notification is

¶49

¶50

WP No. 15522 of 2021

¶51

again a matter on record. The notification insofar as it is

¶52

germane for the consideration of the present lis reads as follows:

¶53

"(v) Land (Applicable to all categories):

¶54

The applicants would be classified into three groups as mentioned below based on the land offered or land not offered by them in the application form:-

¶55

Group 1: Applicants having suitable piece of land in the advertised location/area either by way of ownership/long term lease for a period of minimum 19 years 11 months or as advertised by the OMC.

¶56

Group 2: Applicants having Firm Offer for a suitable piece of land for purchase or long term lease for a period of minimum 19 years 11 months, or as advertised by the OMC.

¶57

Group 3: Applicants who have not offered land in the application.

¶58

Applications under Group 3 would be processed/advised to offer land only in case no eligible applicant is found or no applicant get selected under Group 1 & 2.

¶59

In case land offered by all the applicants under Group 1 & Group 2 is found not suitable/not meeting requirements, then these applicant/s under Group 1 & Group 2 along with applicants under Group 3 (who did not offer land along with application) would be advised by the OMCs to

¶60

¶61

WP No. 15522 of 2021

¶62

provide suitable land in the advertised location/stretch, within a period of 3 months from the date of issuance of intimation letter to them through SMS/e-mail. In case the applicant fails to provide suitable land within the prescribed period or the land provided is found not meeting the laid down criteria, the application would be rejected ."

¶63

(Emphasis supplied)

¶64

The guidelines appended to the notification defines

¶65

what is land which is applicable to all categories. The applicants who would be placed in Group 1 would have submitted a suitable piece of land along with a lease for a minimum period of 19 years 11 months. Group 2 would again lead to the suitability of the land. Group 3 are the applicants who have not offered any land while submitting the application. It is an admitted fact that respondent No.4 has offered a land while submitting his application and the petitioner has not. Therefore, the petitioner would fall under Group 3 who would be applicants who have not offered any land while submitting the application. The Corporation conducts a survey of the land and comes to conclude that the land falls within the contours of the advertisement that was issued on 25.11.2018 as it was on

¶66

¶67

WP No. 15522 of 2021

¶68

Keelara - Besagarahalli road. The sketch was analyzed and the

¶69

report was sought from the Department. The report was to the effect that the land evaluation carried by the Committee was that the land falls within the advertised area. The observations are as follows:

¶70

“ Kindly refer your letter dated 24.02.2021 on the subject.

¶71

We have advertised for KSK dealership at location Keelara Village on Keelara - Besagarahalli Road, District Mandya vide SRMP 2018. Vide LOI dated 24.11.2020, we have issued KSK dealership in faovur of Shri Shankara K.C., S/o Chikkadasegowda, Keelara Village, Mandya Taluk and district for development of KSK at Khata No.1978/1107/1, Khata No.1978/1107, Keelara Village, Taluk and District Mandya. The above location is an alternate location given by the LOI holder in place of Survey No.211/21.

¶72

As per letter dated 24.2.2021, it was stated that Sy.No.211/21, Keelara Village (First location) and Panchayat khata No.1978/1107/1, Khata No.1978/1107, Keelara Village (Alternate location) is not abutting Keelara-Besagrahalli Road but it abuts under Keelara Mandya Road. As per land evaluation carried by our committee,

¶73

¶74

WP No. 15522 of 2021

¶75

our committee observed that the land falls within the advertised area.”

¶76

(Emphasis supplied)

¶77

The learned counsel for the respondent No.1Corporation is right in submitting that after all the scrutiny was done by the Committee and the inspection of the property, the location being confirmed by the respective authorities, the outlet is awarded in favour of respondent No.4. Therefore, no fault can be found.

¶78

Insofar as the contention of the petitioner that in the event the advertisement would be that land anywhere in Keelara village can be offered, he would have offered, is neither here nor there, as the petitioner in his application did not offer any land to come within Group 1 or Group 2. If the Corporation has chosen respondent No.4 who comes within Group 1 or Group 2, there was no question of jumping to Group 3 when there was the availability of an applicant under Group 1 and Group 2. The petitioner cannot challenge the allotment made to respondent No.4 particularly in the teeth of the fact that he

¶79

10 -

¶80

WP No. 15522 of 2021

¶81

has not offered any land pursuant to the advertisement along with the application.

¶82

For the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in this

¶83

petition and the same is dismissed.

¶84

The interim order stands dissolved.

¶85

I.A. No.1/2022 stands disposed of, as a consequence.

¶86

Sd/JUDGE

¶87

sma

¶88

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Sri. Jayaram Gowda v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Jayaram Gowda v. 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

Dodla Diary Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs.Garima Vs Mr.Gurupreet Singh Rana

Sri K S Palakshappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Shaista Sultana Vs Shakeel Pasha

Mrs Jacintha Prasad Panicker Vs Bank of Baroda

M/S Nandavan Educational Trust Vs Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board