IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.56921/2013(GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SATHAWADI HANUMANTHAPPA S S/O.DODDA VENKATAPPA S AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O.KORACHARA HATTI VILALGE MACHIHALLI POST HARAPANAHALLI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT 583131.
NOW RESIDING AT NO.1037, 5TH CROSS GOVT.SCHOOL MAIN ROAD "B" BLOCK, SPS NAGAR, 2ND STAGE DAVANAGERE-577006.
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV.) AND ... PETITIONER 1. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED MARKETING DIVISION NO.6, 1ST FLOOR, INFANTRY ROAD CANTONMENT, BELLARY-583104, REPRSENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER.
2. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED MARKETING DIVISION, NO.29, INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, P.KALINGA RAO ROAD (MISSION ROAD) BANGALORE-560027 BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHARATH MULIA, ADV. FOR FOX MANDAL ASSOCIATES) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DTD.3.7.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-N AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO AWARD / SANCTION OF KSK DEALERSHIP FOR THE LOCATION:NEELGUND CROSS TO NILGUND, HARAPANAHALLI, TALUK, DAVANGERE DISTRICT, INTERMS OF THE ADVERTISEMENT DTD.27.8.2011.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R In this writ petition, the petitioner sought for a direction to the respondents to consider the representation dated 3.7.2012 vide Annexure-N and direct the respondents to award/sanction of KSK Dealership for the location: Neelgund cross to Nilagund, Harapanahalli Taluk, Davanagere District, in terms of the advertisement dated 27.8.2011.
2. Brief facts of the case:
Respondent-Corporation invited application from the eligible candidates for allotment of petrol bunk under the open category, under the scheme ‘Kisan Seva Kendra’ for the place located in Neelgund cross to Nilagund, Harapanahalli Taluk, Davanagere District vide advertisement dated 27.8.2011. Pursuant to the advertisement, the petitioner has filed the application for allotment of the petrol bunk at Neelagund Cross and along with the application, he has filed all relevant documents which is prescribed under the notification. Pursuant to the application, the respondent No.1 intimated the petitioner that the committee will be visiting the site of the petitioner on 8.11.2011 vide Annexure-H. Subsequently, the respondent No.1 on 9.11.2011 issued a letter calling upon the petitioner to appear for a personal interview on 24.11.2011. Respondent No.1 conducted interview of the petitioner and other person. Out of the two, the petitioner obtained the highest marks. As requested by the respondent No.1, the petitioner obtained a letter dated 19.12.2011 vide Annexure-L from the Engineering Department of Panchayathraj, Harapanahalli in respect of the location and site in question and produced the same to the respondent No.1. Since, the petitioner did not receive any intimation from respondent No.1, he made a representation dated 3.7.2012 vide Annexure-N requesting to consider the candidature for sanction for KSK Dealership. In order to know the result of the spot inspected conducted by the selection committee on 8.11.2011, he applied for the certified copy of the spot inspection report under the RTI Act. The report of the spot inspection conducted is produced at Annexure-R. The petitioner had given representation dated 3.7.2012 vide Annexure-N to the respondent- Corporation requesting to issue a letter of indent. Since, he did not receive any reply/intimation from the respondent No.1, he has filed this writ petition.
3. Sri.Chandrashekar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the advertisement dated 27.8.2011, the petitioner has submitted his application with all relevant documents. Respondent vide Annexure-H had intimated the petitioner that the committee will be visiting for site inspection on 8.11.2011. After conducting spot inspection, the respondent called upon the petitioner for personal interview. The petitioner had secured more marks than the other person in the interview. He further submits that as per Annexure-L, letter dated 19.12.2011 issued by AEE, Panchayath Raj Department, the land is situated on the rural road and comes under the jurisdiction of Grama Panchayath. As per Annexure-R which is issued to the respondent- Corporation, it is very clear that the offered plot falls within the advertised location. Inspite of producing all relevant documents, the respondent-Corporation has come up with a objection that the petitioner land is situated on the State Highway-2. This stand of the respondent is contrary to the documents produced by the petitioner. Without giving any opportunity, the respondent-Corporation has taken up this decision. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation submits that as per the newspaper advertisement dated 27.8.2011 vide Annexure-R1, it is specifically stated that “the proposed land for KSK must not be on national highway, state highway and should meet laws and bye-laws of PWD and all local statutory requirements”. As per Annexure-R-3, copy of the letter dated 31.10.2011 issued by the Office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Harpanahalli, it is very clear that the place which is identified by the petitioner is on the State Highway-2. Since, the petitioner has not met the requirements in terms of the notification, the Corporation has not granted the dealership. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Perused the records.
6. The respondent-Corporation had published the advertisement on 27.8.2011 inviting applications for allotment of KSK Dealership (Petrol pump) located at Neelgund cross to Nilgund, Harapanahalli Taluk, Davanagere District. Pursuant to that, the petitioner had filed an application along with all relevant documents. The respondent after verifying the same, had sent a letter to the petitioner intimating about the spot inspection to be held on 8.11.2011. After the spot inspection, the respondent called the petitioner for a personal interview, which was conducted on 24.11.2011. In the personal interview, the petitioner had secured more marks than the other person. Subsequently, as requested by the respondent, the petitioner obtained a letter dated 9.12.2011 vide Annexure-L issued by the office of the Panchayath Raj and approved by AEE which states that the land identified by the petitioner is on the rural road and falls within the jurisdiction of panchayath area. Further, as per the spot inspection report (Annexure- R), in item No.3 it is very clearly stated that “3. Whether offered plot falls in the advertised location (Yes/No): Yes”. But whereas, the letter dated 31.10.2011 issued by the Office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Harpanahalli vide Annexure-R3, it is very clear that the place which is identified by the petitioner is on the State Highway-2. As per the notification, the proposed land for KSK must not be on national highway, state highway and should meet laws and bye-laws of PWD and all local statutory requirements.
7. In view of the discrepancy in the spot inspection report and the Annexure-L and Annexure- R3 issued by the authority in regard to the location of the land identified by the petitioner for the retail outlet, under this circumstances in the interest of both the parties. The respondent-Corporation is directed to conduct spot inspection, with the presence of petitioner and find out whether the land identified by the petitioner is situated on the national highway or state highway or otherwise with the assistance of concerned authority and pass an order in accordance with law and communicate the same to the petitioner.
8. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE DM