IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.10377/2015 (GM – RES) BETWEEN:
K.B.RAJESHWARI W/O C.M.MANDANNA, 39 YEARS, PROP:M/s RAJESHWARI HP GAS GRAMIN VITARAK, MURNAD ROAD, NAPOKLU, MADIKERI TALUK,, KODAGU DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY Ms. P.C.VINITHA, ADV. FOR SRI T.A.KARUMBAIAH, ADV.) AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KODAGU DISTRICT, MADIKERI, KODAGU-571201.
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KODAGU DISTRICT, MADIKERI, KODAGU-571201.
3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER NAPOKLU POLICE STATION, MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571220.
4. THE GENERAL MANAGER INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., MARKETING DIVISION, INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, NO.29, P.KALINGA RAO ROAD, (MISSION ROAD), BANGALORE-27.
5. COORG GAS SERVICES NEAR MUTHAPPA TEMPLE, MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT-571201. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, M.K.CHENGAPPA, S/O LATE KARIAPPA, 78 YEARS, 6. ESHWAR KUMAR S/O MANJUNATH SAIT, 50 YEARS, COORG GAS SERVICES, NEAR MUTHAPPA TEMPLE, MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT-571201 7. M/S VIJAYA VINAYAKA GAS SERVICES NEAR FMC COLOLEGE, MADIKERI, KODAGU-571201, BY ITS PROPRIETOR JANARDHAN. …RESPONDENTS (BY Ms. NILOAFER AKBAR, AGA. FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI A.K.LAKSHMANAN, ADV. FOR R-4;
SRI R.YOGESH, ADV. FOR R-5;
SRI H.T.NAGARAJ, ADV. FOR R-6 AND R-7.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT No.4 TO DIRECT RESPONDENT Nos.5 TO 7 NOT TO OVERLAP THE TERRITORY OF THE PETITIONER AND FURTHER DIRECT THEM TO CARRY ON THEIR BUSINESS OF SUPPLYING LPG WITHIN THEIR TERRITORY AND AREA OF OPERATION.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The only prayer of the petitioner is to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider Annexure-C representation dated 25.09.2014 to take appropriate action against the respondent Nos.5 to 7 within a specified period.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as dealer under Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitarak [RG GLV] of HP Gas vide appointment order dated 26.07.2011 at Napoklu village, Madikere Taluk, Kodagu District. Accordingly, the petitioner entered into dealership on 26.07.2011 with the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. The dealership of the petitioner was granted under the Rajiv Gandhi Grameena LPG Vitarak Yojana [RG GLV]. As per the agreement, the petitioner has the territorial jurisdiction of Napoklu Hobli and the surrounding areas. One of the condition of the agreement – Condition No.2[b][iv] is that the dealer shall not sell outside his territory. The petitioner is selling LPG within the territorial jurisdiction. The respondent Nos.5 to 7 are the dealers of LPG under the Indian Oil Corporation Limited and they are having office and godown at Madikeri. The fifth respondent has his office and godown near Muthappa Temple, Madikeri City and seventh respondent has his office and godown near Field Marshall Cariappa, College, Madikeri. They can distribute and sell only within their own territory i.e., in the urban area of Madikeri City. The respondent No.6 is the agent of fifth respondent. Since fifth and seventh respondents are distributing and selling the LPG gas exceeding their territory and in the territory of the petitioner. She made a complaint to the first respondent – Deputy Commissioner on 27.09.2014 and made another application to the fourth respondent on 31.12.21014. In response to the same, on 20.01.2015, both the respondents sent replied answering the request of the petitioner. On 01.02.2015 the petitioner sent a letter to the respondent Nos.5 and 7 requesting them not to distribute the LPG cylinders in the territory of the petitioner. In spite of the same, the first respondent has not considered the request of the petitioner or passed any orders on the representation made by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief sought for.
3. The respondent Nos.6 and 7 filed objections and denied the averments made in the writ petition and contended that the respondent Nos.5 to 7 are the dealers of LPG Gas under the Indian Oil Corporation. The area of distribution was fixed in Madikeri Taluk and surrounding areas and any other areas specified by the Corporation i.e., Indian Oil Corporation Limited and they are not interfering with the territory of the petitioner as contended by the petitioner and further contended that the petitioner has to distribute only HP Gas at Napoklu village under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitarak Yojana [RG GLV] wherein the respondents are distributing strictly in accordance with the agreement entered into Indian Oil Corporation. Therefore, sought to dismiss the writ petition.
4. Learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 fairly submits that the representation of the petitioner will be considered and appropriate orders will be passed in accordance with law, if not already considered and disposed off. The said submission is placed on record.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
6. It is the specific case of the petitioner that she is distributing the HP Gas in the territory of Napoklu and respondent Nos.5 to 7 are interfering with the territory and distributing the sellers belongs to the petitioner which is impermissible. It is the case of the respondent Nos.5 to 7 that they are distributing the LPG in terms of the agreement entered into between the Indian Oil Corporation and they are not violating the territory as contended.
7. In view of the disputed facts between the parties, it is for the Deputy Commissioner to hold enquiry on the representation made by the petitioner dated 25.09.2014 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Though the representation was made on 25.09.2014 till the date, the Deputy Commissioner has not considered nor filed any statement of objections before this Court. Therefore, it is a fit case to issue writ of mandamus as prayed for.
8. For the reasons stated above, Writ petition is allowed. The Deputy Commissioner, Kodagu [Food Department] is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner after issuing notice to the petitioner, respondent Nos.4, 5, 6 and 7 and to pass appropriate orders and in accordance with law if not already considered, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE NC.