Allowed

Venugopal. C. N. v. M/S. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Karnataka HC10 Feb 2025WP/919/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioner's writ petition challenging the rejection of his candidature for a petrol pump dealership. The court quashed the rejection communication, held that reliance on deleted land reform sections was illegal, and directed the authorities to reconsider the application after finding an infringement of eligibility criteria involving duplicate land offerings.

What did the court decide?

The communication of rejection dated 18.06.2020 was quashed, and the petitioner's application was directed to be reconsidered by the respondent following the law.

Venugopal. C. N. Vs M/S. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5785 WP No. 919 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 919 OF 2021 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

VENUGOPAL.C.N. S/O. C.NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.75, (OLD NO. 14), NN FARM LAYOUT, NEAR KEB LAYOUT, GEDDALAHALLI, RMV EXTENSION II STAGE, BANGALORE-560 094.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SHARATH.S.GOWDA., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

M/S. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., KARNATAKA STATE OFFICE, NO.29, "INDIAN OIL BHAVAN", P.KALINGA RAO ROAD, (MISSION ROAD), BANGALORE-560 027, REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.

¶13

HEAD OF DIVISIONAL OFFICE, M/S. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., BANGALORE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, HAVING OFFICE AT KAY ARR ANJUMAN TOWER, NO.28, P.KALINGA RAO ROAD, (MISSION ROAD), BANGALORE-560 027.

¶14

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., MARKETING DIVISION: BANGALORE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, HAVING OFFICE AT "INDIAN OIL BHAVAN", NO.28, 1^ST FLOOR, ANJUMAN KAY ARR TOWER, P.KALINGA RAO ROAD, (MISSION ROAD),

¶15

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:5785 WP No. 919 of 2021

¶17

BANGALORE-560 027, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER.

¶18

C.K.GEETHA ALIAS C.K.TRIVENI D/O. LATE CHINDODI KARIBASAVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO. 141/A, "GEETHA NIVAS", 3^RD MAIN, 1^ST BLOCK, RMV 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560 094.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. DHANANJAY JOSHI., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. KAVITHA DAMODARAN., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; R4-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Sri.Sharath S.Gowda., counsel for the petitioner and

¶24

Sri.Dhananjay Joshi., Senior counsel on behalf of Smt.Kavitha Damodaran., for respondents 1 to 3 have appeared in person.

¶25

The brief facts are these.

¶26

The Indian Oil Corporation (Karnataka State Office) issued an advertisement vide Paper publication in Daily News Paper, The Times of India on 25.11.2018 inviting applications for Regular Retail Outlet (Petrol Pump Dealership) at various

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:5785 WP No. 919 of 2021

¶29

locations in the State of Karnataka. It is noted that interested applicants may make an online application by 24.12.2018 after understanding the conditions stipulated in the brochure.

¶30

The petitioner after completely understanding the terms and conditions mentioned in the available brochure on the official website of the Respondent authorities submitted his application aspiring for allotment of a Retail Outlet (Petrol Pump Dealership) in the range running from Mylanahalli to Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, near Bagalur in Bangalore Urban District identifying his place at Bandikodigehalli. The applicants were classified into Group 1, 2 and 3 based on their position about the availability of land in terms of Clause 4 sub clause (1) of the brochure. The petitioner’s candidature was rejected vide communication dated 18.06.2020. Hence, the petitioner has filed the Writ Petition.

¶31

Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions.

¶32

Sri.Sharath S.Gowda., counsel for the petitioner submits that the rejection is arbitrary, illegal, and perverse.

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5785 WP No. 919 of 2021

¶34

Next, he submitted that rejecting the selection of the petitioner under Group 1, on the ground that the land offered by the petitioner is hit by the provisions of Sections 79 A and 79 B of the Land Reforms Act, is bad in law as the said provisions have been deleted retrospectively by an ordinance of the Government.

¶35

A further submission is made that the rejection is against the principles of natural justice.

¶36

Counsel vehemently contended that the authorities are trying to substantiate the rejection of selection of petitioner under Group 1 for allotment of Dealership placing reliance on Section 5 of the Land Reforms Act. He argued by saying that section 5 applies only in cases of lease made for agricultural /Agrarian purposes and is not applicable concerning leases made for non-agrarian purposes. It is also submitted that the change of land use is approved and the subject land is no longer agricultural land.

¶37

Counsel also contended that the authorities ought to have rejected the candidature of the fourth respondent and as well

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5785 WP No. 919 of 2021

¶39

as her brother, since they offered the same piece of land for allotment of dealership.

¶40

Lastly, he submitted that viewed from any angle, the rejection of petitioner's candidature is bad in law and prayed that a suitable order may be passed.

¶41

Senior counsel Sri.Dhananjay Joshi., in presenting his arguments strenuously urged that the land offered by the petitioner was an agricultural land and the same was not converted for use for non-agricultural purposes. He argued by saying that the utilization of agricultural land for setting up and operating a fuel retail outlet is not permissible under section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 and section 5 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961 as no tenancy can be created by way of a lease in respect of agricultural land.

¶42

Counsel drew the attention of the court to Clause-V of the Brochure - Land (Applicable to all categories) to contend that the applicant must have a suitable piece of land either by way of ownership/ long-term lease. Counsel vehemently contended that there were six applicants in Group 1, three applicants in Group 2 and three applicants in Group 3. In any event the

¶43

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5785 WP No. 919 of 2021

¶44

petitioner will not have the chance to become a successful candidate as there are six applicants in Group 1 and three applicants in Group 2.

¶45

Lastly, he justified the action of the authorities and prayed for the dismissal of the Writ Petition.

¶46

Counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the following decisions.

¶47

1. VINOD.N VS M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, WRIT APPEAL NO.216/2020 DISPOSED OF ON 20.07.2021.

¶48

2. C.K.GEETHA VS M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS, WRIT PETITION NO.755/2020 DISPOSED OF ON 20.02.2020.

¶49

3. SRI.MAHADEVAPPA RACHAPPA BANDE VS M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, WRIT PETITION NO.142/2020 DISPOSED OF ON 14.02.2020.

¶50

Heard the arguments and perused the writ papers

¶51

with utmost care.

¶52

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:5785 WP No. 919 of 2021

¶54

The issue revolves around a narrow compass and relates to the rejection of petitioner’s candidature and moving his application to Group-3. It is noted that the authorized signatory, on behalf of the IOC, has communicated to the petitioner that his candidature has been found ineligible. The true copy of the same is furnished along with the Writ Petition and the same is marked as Annexure-A. A perusal of the same would reflect that IOC has rejected the selection of the petitioner under Group 1 on the pretext that the land offered by him is hit by Sections 79 A and B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. This is unsustainable in law as of today. The reason is apparent. By Amendment Act, 2020, Sections 79A and B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act were omitted from 01.03.1974. Because of the omission of the sections, the reason cannot be sustained.

¶55

During arguments, the authorities tried to substantiate their rejection that the utilization of agricultural land for setting up and operating a fuel retail outlet is not permissible as no tenancy can be created by way of a lease in respect of agricultural land. I decline to accept the said contention. A perusal of writ papers reflects that the Government has

¶56

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5785 WP No. 919 of 2021

¶57

accorded permission for a change of user of the land vide order dated 05.01.2021. Hence, moving the petitioner to Group 3 is not correct.

¶58

Furthermore, amongst Group 1 applicants, the authorities conducted a bidding process to select the highest bidder for the award of the Retail Outlet Dealership. It is significant to note that one Mr.Rajshekar emerged as the successful bidder followed by his sister - the fourth respondent and then by the petitioner. The petitioner contends that Mr.Rajshekar and his sister C.K.Geetha offered the same piece of land and offering the same land would make them ineligible in terms of non-compliance with the eligibility criteria as stipulated in Clause 4 (V) Note 1 sub-clause (c) of the brochure. A perusal of the lease deeds at Annexures F and F1 reflects that the lands offered by the fourth respondent and her brother are the same. It is significant to note that the same piece of land cannot be offered in terms of the conditions that are enumerated in the brochure. Hence, the petitioner is justified in contending that offering the same land would make the applicants ineligible in terms of Clause 4 (V) Note 1 subclause (c). I may venture to say that, the authorities has failed

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:5785 WP No. 919 of 2021

¶60

¶61

to have regard to the relevant considerations and disregarded relevant matters. In my view, the matter requires reconsideration by the authorities, hence, I deem it proper to quash Annexure-A. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered and the communication sent through E-mail dated 18.06.2018 vide Annexure-A is quashed. This court directs IOC to consider the

¶62

application of the petitioner and act following the law.

¶63

7. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed .

¶64

SD/(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE

¶65

MRP

¶66

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1

Venugopal. C. N. v. M/S. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venugopal. C. N. v. M/S. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri M.Thayappa Vs the State of Karnataka

The Executive Engineer (Electrical) Vs Smt Girijamma

Kum. Pankaja Vs Sri. T. Ramaiah

M/S Aksha Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs Authorised Officer/Cheif Manager

M/S Shonkh Technologies International Limited Vs Oriental Bank of Commerce

M/S Manappuram Finance Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka