Dismissed

Mahesh G S v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 Oct 2023WP/5856/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition filed as a PIL seeking to quash a No Objection Certificate issued to Indian Oil Corporation Limited for a petrol pump. The court held the petition was an afterthought as the facility was already operational, invoking laches principles cited from M.P. Housing Board v. Vijay Bodana.

What did the court decide?

The petition seeking quashing of the No Objection Certificate dated 7.9.2022 was dismissed at the threshold.

Mahesh G S Vs State of Karnataka — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:38150-DB WP No. 5856 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 5856 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

MAHESH G.S. S/O SIDDALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.72, GYARAGHATTA, RAMANAHALLI POST, TUMKUR, KARNATAKA-572217. PAN No.AZWPM22275 ADHAR:7807 7013 3528 MOB NO:9980075233 EMAIL ID:[email protected]

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS V, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101.

¶18

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, CHIKKAMAGALURU DIVISION, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC:38150-DB WP No. 5856 of 2023

¶21

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, MARKETING DIVISION, INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, ABBAKKA NAGAR, KOTTARA, KULOOR FERRY ROAD, MANGALORE-575006 REPRESENTED BY DIVISIONAL SALES MANAGER.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH RULE 14(1) OF THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION) RULES 2018 PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE AND QUASH THE DATED 07/09/2022 BEARING £ÀA: PÁ. EA: ¯ÉÆÃ. E. aªÀÄ«: ¸À.EA-3:2022-23 VIDE ANNEXURE E ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT No.3 TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The present petition is filed under the caption ‘PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION’. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that their client expeditiously approached this court upon gaining knowledge of the materials presented, which depicted a starkly different situation. The petitioner, a resident of Tumkur Town, filed this petition seeking a Writ of Certiorari or any other suitable writ to quash the No Objection Certificate dated

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:38150-DB WP No. 5856 of 2023

¶29

7.9.2022, issued by respondent No.3 for the installation of

¶30

a petrol pump.

¶31

Upon thorough examination, it is revealed that the concerned petrol pump is a COCO (Company Only and Company Operated) facility. The records indicate that on 8.7.2022, the Deputy Commissioner of Chikkamagaluru District granted a 'No Objection Certificate' for the storage of the retail outlet in Sy.No.824 of Hiremagaluru village, Kasaba hobli, Chikkamagaluru taluk, Chikkamagaluru district, in favor of M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited. Various communications referenced as Nos. 1 to 9 in the said NOC were also taken into account, demonstrating that the necessary permissions have been duly obtained from the competent authorities, including the Assistant Electrical Inspector, Panchayath Development Officer, Chief Fire Officer, Executive Engineer of the Public Works Department in Chikkamagaluru, Superintendent of Police of Chikkamagaluru District, & the Assistant Commissioner of Chikkamagaluru Sub-division.

¶32

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:38150-DB WP No. 5856 of 2023

¶33

The introductory part of the NOC reaffirms that as

¶34

these various authorities expressed no objection to granting a license under the Petroleum Rules, 2002, the said Deputy Commissioner, issued the NOC with specific conditions enlisted under the heading "CONDITIONS” as under:

¶35

“1. Sufficient open space all around the Retail outlet should be provided for the free movement of the vehicles

¶36

2. The layout plan of the proposed Retail outlet shall be got approved and necessary license shall be obtained before the commencement of outlet from the competent local authorities.

¶37

3. Retail outlet should be installed at a distance as suggested by the PWD Authority, vide reference 7.

¶38

4. No smoking of Fire in any form shall be permitted at any time within the premises. A notice board indicating this shall be exhibited in the premises.

¶39

5. First-aid centre should compulsorily be opened in the proposed premises.

¶40

6. Necessary fire safety measures as suggested by the authorities of Fire & Emergency Services, vide reference cited at 6 shall be strictly complied with.

¶41

7. This NOC is valid for a period of one year from the date of issue within which period the installation work should be completed. This NOC is liable for cancellation in the event of violation of any of the above conditions and Petroleum Rules 2002 by the applicant i.e., M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited Mangaluru, Authority.

¶42

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:38150-DB WP No. 5856 of 2023

¶43

It is noteworthy that although the petitioner

¶44

claims to have submitted a representation to the authority, the representation/application was forwarded to the authority on two occasions, namely, 16.11.2022 & 22.2.2023. The later one appears to be a standardized representation, a copy of which is attached as AnnexureG. This document solely refers to the applicant, without any signature or mention of the applicant's name. Subsequently, the petition was filed in this court on 9.3.2023. Moreover, the photographic evidence (Annexures-B, B1, and B2) submitted clearly indicates the near-completion of the petrol pump's construction, with the facility being in an operational and functional state. The delayed action of the petitioner raises questions regarding the timing of their approach to the court, and thus the issue of latches too surfaces.

¶45

Taking these circumstances into consideration, we

¶46

opine that the petition seems to be an afterthought or an abortive attempt on petitioner's part to do something

¶47

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:38150-DB WP No. 5856 of 2023

¶48

ulterior. Considering that the petrol pump is already operational and that petroleum products are essential commodities, the court disinclines to provide any leniency at this late stage, which could potentially inconvenience the public for the vicarious satisfaction of one individual. The fundamental principle guiding this decision is that parties are expected to approach the court within a reasonable time frame and the courts cannot be utilized for individual whims and fancies, as reiterated by the Apex Court in M.P. Housing & Infrastructure Development

¶49

Board v. Vijay Bodana , (2020) 4 SCC 521 .

¶50

Consequently, we find the petition to be devoid of merits warranting dismissal at the threshold and accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

cbc

Mahesh G S v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh G S v. State of Karnataka

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

Shri a. Lakshmipathy Vs Smt. Vanditha Sharma

M P Lakshmi Narayana Reddy Vs Sri Ravi

Sri Manjunath Yellappa Timmapur Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Nayazuddin Vs State of Karnataka

Smt K S Arpitha Vs State of Karnataka

Jayadeva S P Vs Rajashekara