IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.47654 OF 2015 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
Sri.A.Balakrishna S/o of late Achappa, Aged about 46 years, Prop:M/s. Sri.Vrushabadri, Filling Station (IOC Dealer), Sidlaghatta Town, Chikkaballapura District, Pin-562105. ... Petitioner (By. Sri. Srinivasa Murthy S.R., Advocate) AND:
1. The Deputy General Manager & Public Information Officer, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Marketing Division, Indian Oil Bhavan, Karnataka State Office, No.29, P.Kalinga Rao Road, (Mission Road), Bangalore-560027.
2. Sri.A.Venkatesh S/o late Achappa, Aged about 45 years, R/at Bypass Road, Behind Petrol Bunk, Sidlaghatta, Chikkaballapura District, Pin-562105.
3. Union of India Represented by its Secretary, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, New Delhi. ... Respondents (By Sri.A.K.Lakshmanan, Adv., for R1; Sri.V.Subash Reddy, Adv., for R2; Smt. Syeda Shehnaz, CGC for R3) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of mandamus to the respondent No.1 to give supply of petroleum products to the petitioner as per dealership license issued by the respondent No.1 forthwith by considering the representation given by the petitioner to the respondent No.1 dated 31.08.2015 vide Annexure-D and etc.
This petition is coming on for ‘preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group’ this day, the court made the following:
ORDER Petitioner has filed the present writ petition for writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to provide petroleum products as per Dealership License issued by the first respondent forthwith by considering his representation dated 31.08.2015 and also for writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to furnish the latest guidelines issued from the Ministry of Natural Gas and Oil Corporation and also explain the relevancy of the landed documents when once the Dealership/License has been granted at the time of conducting the interview.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the authorized dealer of 1st respondent office products which has been granted by the 1st respondent way back in the year 2006. The dealership was granted by the 1st respondent to the petitioner under the category of Fleet Operator. Before granting the license, it is needless to say that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent are own brothers, the 2nd respondent is having ownership of the property by way of partition in the form of a Will executed by his father. When the petitioner and the 2nd respondent are in cordial relationship, the 2nd respondent has also assisted the 1st respondent for grant of dealership in dealing with the petroleum products. The 2nd respondent has given an affidavit in the form of consent to operate the petrol bunk at the address as stated above, after complying all the formalities, the 1st respondent has granted the dealership and went on supply the petrol, diesel and other allied oil products.
3. It is further contended that the 1st respondent made certain letter correspondences with the petitioner. Later the 1st respondent by its letter dated 29.07.2014 issued a letter to the petitioner demanding the documents mentioned therein such as PAN card, balance sheet for the years 2012-13. In pursuance of the same, the petitioner has uploaded the documents except land documents which is item No.4 and same was unable to upload, for the reasons that the 2nd respondent did not cooperate in furnishing the documents to the petitioner, in turn, the same has to be produced by the petitioner to the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent started a personal feud with the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner could not comply the requirements demanded by the 1st respondent as per annexure-C. As a result of which the petroleum products supplied by the 1st respondent was stopped. Therefore, the petitioner made representation dated 31.08.2015 to the 1st respondent as per annexure- D, but till today, same has not been considered. In order to favour the 2nd respondent, 1st respondent has stopped the supply of petroleum products to the petitioner who is the authorized dealer. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court for the aforesaid reliefs.
4. The 1st respondent has filed statement of objection to the main petition and contended that the very writ petition filed for writ of mandamus is not maintainable. He would further contended that the 1st respondent has asked for documents from all the dealers and this is in consonance with the policy guidelines issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. These documents are being checked in order to prevent benami operation of the retail outlet, which is a serious offence. The petitioner who is a R.O. dealer has not uploaded any of the required documents in spite of repeated warnings. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that all documents except the land documents have been uploaded is false and the same is denied. Adequate opportunity was given to the petitioner to upload the documents. Thereafter the supplies were stopped by IOC. The supplies to the petitioner can only be resumed on producing the documents proving ownership of dealership. He further contended that the dispute is a matter between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent and IOC is no way concerned with the same. Hence, prays for dismissal of the same.
5. The second respondent filed objection denying the averments and contending that there are no contractual obligations between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, before the 1st respondent in so far as the petitioner running business in the land belonging to 2nd respondent, hence, writ of mandamus cannot be issued. Therefore, sought to dismiss the writ petition.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for both parties, it is undisputed fact that the 1st respondent has issued appointment letter for grant of dealership to the petitioner on 26.02.2008. According to the petitioner, he has uploaded relevant documents as sought by the 1st respondent except land documents and he has given sufficient reasons for non production of land documents. When the petitioner made representation as per annexure-D dated 31.08.2015 for supply of petroleum products, it is the duty of the 1st respondent to consider the same and to take appropriate decision, but same has not been done except filing the statement of objections.
7. In view of the above, Writ petition is allowed.
1st respondent is hereby directed to consider the representation of petitioner as per annexure-D dated 31.08.2015 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within the period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE JS/-