Mrs. Deepali K J Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., REGD. OFFICE INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, G-9, ALL YAVAR JUNG MARG BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI-400051 MAHARASHTRA STATE REPTD. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.

¶15

THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., INDIAN OIL BHAVAN 29, T.KALINGA RAO RAOD, MISSION ROAD, SAMPANGI RAMA NAGAR BENGALURU-560 027.

¶16

THE GENERAL MANAGER (IOCL) INDIAN OIL BHAVAN 29, T.KALINGA RAO ROAD, MISSION ROAD,

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:6152 WP No. 12716 of 2020

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

SAMPANGI RAMA NAGAR BENGALURU-560 027.

¶21

DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (RETAIL SALES) BENGALURU DIVISIONAL OFFICE (IOCL) 28, K.R. ANJUMAN TOWER, 1^ST FLOOR, T.KALINGA RAO ROAD, MISSION ROAD, SAMPANGI RAM NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. UDAYA PRAKASH MULIYA .,ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-J, E-MAIL NOTICE DATED 30.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE R-1 AS BEING ARBITRARY ILLEGAL AND UNSUSTAINABLE; DIRECT RESPONDENTS TO RECTIFY THE ERROR REGARDING AREA OF LOCATION IN WHICH IT COMES, IS IT COMES WITHIN RURAL AREA OR URBAN AREA AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Petitioner is before this Court seeking following reliefs;

¶27

"(1) Issue an order or appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari quashing ANNEXURE-J, E-Mail Notice dated: 30-09-2020 issued by the respondent No.1 as being arbitrary illegal and unsustainable

¶28

(2) Issue an order or appropriate Writ in the nature of mandamus thereby direct respondents to rectify the error regarding area of location in which it comes, is it comes within Rural area or Urban area (2a) Issue an

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:6152 WP No. 12716 of 2020

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

order or appropriate writ to quash notice which is produced at ANNEXURE-J.

¶33

(3) Grant such other relief or relief's which are deems fit and proper under the above said circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

¶34

(4) Grant costs of this writ petition."

¶35

Case of the petitioner is; that in response to a notification issued by the respondent No.1/Indian Oil Corporation calling for applications for allotment of retail outlet (petrol pump) dealership through online mode at various locations in the State of Karnataka, the petitioner had filed an application seeking allotment in respect of location within State of Karnataka which comes in KIAL New Road (B.K. Halli Road Jn. to Old KIAL Road Jn). Petitioner in furtherance thereof had obtained lease in respect of land measuring 7,875 square feet in Sy.No.3/6 situated at Beguru Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore Urban District, coming within the location as notified for the establishment of petroleum outlet. That respondent had issued a communication through e-mail on 16.07.2019 as per Annexure-E informing the petitioner having been selected and allotted dealership in respect of the aforesaid location and further called upon her to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:6152 WP No. 12716 of 2020

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

initial deposit and to produce the documents as specified therein, which was complied by the petitioner.

¶40

In the meanwhile, the respondent No.1 informed

¶41

the petitioner about change in the location of the site for the purpose of allotment of outlet. In that, it was mentioned instead of Bangalore Rural District, it was wrongly mentioned as Bangalore Urban District. Since the location as notified was not ideal, they had cancelled the allotment made in favour of the petitioner. It is this which has led the petitioner approaching this Court in the present petition.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of petition submits that petitioner had been held to be a successful allottee and she having complied with the requirement including taking the land on lease, the respondents could not have changed the location arbitrarily to their whims and fancy thereby causing hardship to petitioner. The petitioner had legitimate expectation of dealership being allotted in respect of the said location and that

¶43

5 -

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:6152 WP No. 12716 of 2020

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

not having been done till date, petitioner is entitled for direction.

¶47

In response, learned counsel for the respondent

¶48

No.1/Indian Oil Corporation, referring to the statement of objections submits that there was an error in notifying the location, wherein instead of location to be notified within Bangalore Rural District, it was notified as Bangalore Urban District, which was neither viable nor required. Therefore, the respondent had withdrew/cancelled the said location. He submitted such power of cancellation after issuance of notification is available and traceable from the brochure providing for selection of dealers for Regular and Rural Retail Outlets published by the Government dated 24.11.2018. Furnishing the copy of the same, learned counsel for the respondent draws attention of this Court to sub-clause xiv of column 10 in clause 23, which refers to General Conditions pertaining to Advertisement' which reads as under;

¶49

"xiv. The Company reserves the right to cancel/ withdraw /amend this advertisement or extend the due date at its sole discretion without assigning any reason."

¶50

6 -

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:6152 WP No. 12716 of 2020

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

Thus referring to the same, he submits that the said

¶54

clause was also made known to the applicants including the petitioner in the advertisement which was initially issued. Therefore, the petitioner being completely aware cannot raise any issue on the same. He further submits that the said brochure also provides for a system for redressal of grievance, in that if the petitioner is aggrieved in any manner she can prefer a complaint before Corporation in terms of clause 18, which would be considered.

¶55

Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the brochure providing such a provision to the respondent No.1/company to cancel or withdraw an amend or extend the due dates at its discretion without any reason. However, at this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the cancellation was made after lapse of 1 year of allotment causing financial loss and burden to the petitioner in the nature

¶56

of she having taken the land on lease which is also now cancelled, he submits a direction be issued to the respondent No.1/company to consider her application in the next allotment on priority basis.

¶57

7 -

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC:6152 WP No. 12716 of 2020

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

Submission is placed on record.

¶61

In view of the above provisions pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent No.1/company, regarding the power and authority of the respondent No.1 to cancel, withdraw and amend the advertisement, in the facts situation of the matter, this Court do not see any merits in the case of the petitioner, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶62

Nonetheless as pointed by learned counsel for the respondent No.1/company a Grievance Redressal System is provided under the said brochure, the petitioner if aggrieved is entitled to avail such remedy that may be available under the Grievance Redressal System.

¶63

With the above observation petition is disposed of .

¶64

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶65

RU, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Mrs. Deepali K J v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Deepali K J v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Chanana Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. a Velumurugan Vs the District Caste Veification Committee

Ramesh Naik L Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.K.G. Govindaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Puravankara Projects Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Venkateshwara Rice Tech Vs the State of Karnataka