IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.54375 OF 2013 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI.N.RAMAIAH S/O NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT NO.9, ARUNODHAYA SAGAR FARM, B.M.ROAD ARCHAKARA HALLI RAMANAGARAM TALUK AND DISTRICT. (BY MR.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADV.) AND:
M/S. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION MYSORE DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.118, BEHIND FCL GODOWN METAGALLI MYSORE – 570 016.
REPRESENTED BY DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER.
(BY MR.PRASHANTH KUMAR, ADV.) - - -
… PETITIONER … RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH LETTER DATED 15.11.2013 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANN-G AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.D.R.Ravishankar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Prashanth Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
(a) Quash letter dated 15.11.2013 in No.MYSDO:R issued by the respondent produced at Annexure-G to the writ petition.
(b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to permit the petitioner to mortgage the lands and to commission the petrol pumps by installing vending machines within a time bound frame or in the alternative direct the respondent to consider the site of the petitioner as ‘A’ type site in which event, the petitioner would not have necessity to seek any permission to mortgage the property.
(c) Pass such other orders as may be deemed appropriate under the circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice.
2. In this petition, the petitioner is seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to permit him to mortgage the lands and to commission the petrol pumps by installing vending machines within a time bound frame or in the alternative to consider the site of the petitioner as ‘A’ type site in which event, the petitioner would not have necessity to seek for any permission to mortgage the property.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the he be granted with a liberty to make a fresh representation before the competent authority. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent submitted that if such a representation is made by the petitioner the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
4. In view of the submissions made and in the fact situation of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a liberty to the petitioner to make a representation with regard to his grievance raised in the petitioner to the competent authority. Needless to state that if a representation is made, the competent authority is directed to decide the same within four months from the date of receipt of such a representation. With regard to the other reliefs which have been claimed by the petitioner, the petitioner is at liberty to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to him under the law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS