Disposed

Jyothsna v. Mangalore Refinery and

Karnataka HC12 Oct 2023WP/5673/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition filed regarding the abandonment of a dealership notification. The court directed the Corporation to accept the petitioner's application filed within ten days, allowing participation in the subsequent regular retail outlet process.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file an application in response to the notification issued by the respondent Corporation on 30.07.2023 within 10 days.

Jyothsna Vs Mangalore Refinery and — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:37239 WP No. 5673 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.5673 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

JYOTHSNA AGED 30 YEARS D/O JAYAKARA RA/T HOUSE NO 1-24 ARASIKATTE MANE ARASIKATTE, POST BANTAKAL 574115 SHIRVA VILLAGE, KAUP TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. S. K. ACHARYA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMEICALS LTD (MRPL) A SUBSIDIARY OF OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD

¶13

Digitally signed by DHARMALINGAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

A SCHEDULE A GOVENMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT PLOT NO A1, OPP KSSIDC (AO) INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE 560001 BY ITS CHAIRMAN

¶15

MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD (MRPL) A SUBSIDIARY OF OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD REGISTERED OFFICE

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:37239 WP No. 5673 of 2023

¶17

POST KUTHETHOOR, VIA KATIPALLA MANGALORE 575030 REP BY ITS CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER (MANGALORE REGION) HEAD OF REGION, MR LAXMISHA RAO N

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. AVI LEUNA, ADVOCATE SMT. AARTI KRISHNAN, ADVOCATE)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AT ANNEXURE-B WHICH HAS BEEN PUT TO SCRUTINY BY WAY OF CONDUCTING THE SPOT INSPECTION AND ACCEPTING THE SURVEY REPORT AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL)

¶24

The grievance of the petitioner is that although the petitioner fulfilled the requirement in terms of the notification at Annexure-A issued by the respondent Corporation for award of Retail Outlet Dealership between Kukkehalli and Uppoor on Perdoor Uppoor Road, Udupi District, nevertheless by abandoning the notification issued

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:37239 WP No. 5673 of 2023

¶26

at Annexure-A, the respondent Corporation has issued a fresh notification calling for application in respect of the same area.

¶27

The learned counsel for the respondent Corporation submits that the respondent corporation does not deny the fact that the notification at Annexure-A was issued and the petitioner is the only applicant, who responded to the notification. However, after the survey was held in the presence of the petitioner, it came to the notice of the respondent Corporation that since the land in question offered by the petitioner is next to the State Highway, the dealership should have been given under the Regular Retail Outlet and not as a Rural Retail Outlet. This mistake having come to the notice of the respondent Corporation, the respondent Corporation has taken a decision to issue a fresh notification. The learned counsel would further add that the petitioner is free to participate in the subsequent notification.

¶28

Having regard to the submissions made by the

¶29

learned counsel for the respondent Corporation, this Court

¶30

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:37239 WP No. 5673 of 2023

¶31

is of the considered opinion that the petitioner should be

¶32

permitted to participate in the notification issued by the respondent corporation subsequently, without denying an opportunity to the petitioner on the ground that application was not filed within time.

¶33

Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed of permitting the petitioner to file an application in response to the notification issued by the respondent Corporation on 30.07.2023. The application may be filed within a period of 10 days from today. If such an application is filed by the petitioner, the respondent Corporation shall accept the same subject to all other conditions and consider the application in accordance with law.

¶34

Ordered accordingly.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

KLY CT: JL

Jyothsna v. Mangalore Refinery and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyothsna v. Mangalore Refinery and

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

V Shivashankarappa Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to

Smt. C. Varalakshmi Vs the Circle Inspector

Smt. Shanthamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner/

Sri. S K Prabhakar Vs Mysore Paper Mills Ltd.

U. Vishweshwara Hegde Vs the Principal Secretary

Mrs Philomena D Souza Vs Union Bank of India