IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOS.13252 – 13253 OF 2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. M/S PADMASHREE SERVICE STATION SITUATED AT SY NO.139, BOLARE VILLAGE (NETTIGERE) NH-209, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU – 560 082 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SMT.SMITHA ANIL KUMAR AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS W/O LATE M. ANIL KUMAR 2. SMT.SMITHA ANIL KUMAR AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS W/O LATE M.ANIL KUMAR R/AT NO.37, 4TH CROSS SRIRAMPURAM BENGALURU – 560 021 … PETITIONERS (BY SRI PAVAN G.N., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM & NATURAL GAS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA SHASTRI BHAVAN NEW DELHI – 110 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. MARKETING DIVISION NO.29, P.KALINGA ROAD (MISSION ROAD) BENGALURU DIVISIONAL OFFICE “INDIAN OIL BHAVAN” BENGALURU – 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (RETAIL SALES) 3. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED INDIAN OIL BHAVAN G-9, ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG BANDRA (EAST) MUMBAI – 400 051 REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (RETAIL SALES) 4. M/S CHAMUNDESHWARI SERVICE STATION INDIAN OIL DEALER REGISTERED OFFICE AT SY NO.102, TAVAREKERE HOBLI, ANJENAHALLI BENGALURU – 562 130 BRANCH OFFICE AT SY NO.139 BOLARE VILLAGE (NETTIGERE) NH-209, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU – 560 082 REPRESENTED BY IT PROPRIETOR … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI R.D.RENUKARADHYA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI DHANANJAY JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3; R4-SERVED) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE TERMINATION ORDER DATED 4.1.2018 ISSUED BY R-2 CORPORATION AS HIGHLY ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND CONTRARY TO LAW ANNEXURE – A OR IN ALTERNATIVE CANCEL THE LEASE DEED DATED 13.01.2005 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER NO.2 IN FAVOUR OF R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE – A1.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Sri.Pavan.G.N., learned Counsel for the petitioners. Sri.Dhananjay Joshi, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Sri.R.D.Renukaradhya, learned Counsel for respondent No.1.
2. The petitions are admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners interalia seek a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of Termination dated 04.01.2018 issued by respondent No.2.
4. When the matter was taken up today, Sri.Dhananjay Joshi, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that the petitioners have an alternate efficacious remedy of filing appeal under Clause 8.9 of the Marketing Discipline Guidelines, 2013. He further submits that in case the petitioners supply a copy of the appeal that has already been preferred by them against the impugned order, the appeal shall be decided within such time as may be directed by this Court.
5. In view of the aforesaid submission, learned Counsel for the petitioners undertakes to supply a copy of the appeal preferred by the petitioners.
6. In view of the fact that the petitioners have got efficacious remedy of appeal under the Marketing Discipline Guidelines, 2013, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter.
Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of, with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioners by a speaking order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of such an appeal.
Sd/- JUDGE KNM/-