IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA WRIT PETITION No.38331/2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
VINOD DEVADIGA S/O LATE BABANNA DEVADIGA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT VINAYA NILAYA KOME ROAD THEKKATTE - 576231 KUNDAPURA TQ UDUPI DIST (BY SR DHANANJAY KUMAR, ADV.) ... PETITIONER AND:
1. THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF ROAD, TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS G - 5 & 6 SECTOR - 10 DWARKA, NEW DELHI - 110045 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER -CUM - RO NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA SY. NO 13, 14TH K M NEAR DEEPAK BUS STOP NAGASNADRA, M S RAMAIAH ENCLAVE BANGALORE TUMKUR NH -4 BANGALORE - 560073 3. NHAI OFFICER NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA DOOR NO. 3/29 BETHEL THERETOTA NEAR PUMPWELL NH - 66 MANGALORE - 575005 4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UDUPI DISTRICT MANIPAL ROAD END POINT MANIPAL, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576201 5. CHIEF VIGILANCE OFFICER BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD NO. 4 & 6 BHARATH BHAVAN CURRIMBHOY ROAD BELLARD ESTATE MUMBAI - 400001 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI KIRAN KUMAR T.L., AGA. FOR R4 NOTICE TO R1, 2, 3 & 5 IS D/W V/O DT:29.08.2017) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 08.05.2017 VIDE ANNEX-A TO E.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Learned Government Advocate to accept notice for respondent No.4 and file memo of appearance in four weeks.
Notice to respondents No.1, 3 and 5 in the present circumstance is not necessary.
2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking issue of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 08.05.2017 at Annexures-A to E. The grievance of the petitioner is that the establishment of a petroleum retail outlet by respondent No.5 is not permissible and therefore the representation be considered in that regard.
3. Admittedly, a perusal of the petition averments would disclose that there is already a retail outlet of another oil company in the vicinity. Whether there is violation of the Regulations or as to whether no objection certificate is required to be granted is a matter which is to be examined by respondent No.4 and as such in that circumstance, one of the villagers like the petitioner raising such contentions would not be appropriate to be noticed by this Court in these proceedings for the purpose of issuing mandamus.
4. Therefore, in that circumstance, a mandamus as sought in this petition in any event would not arise. If at all any action taken by the respondents is contrary to law, at that stage, the party aggrieved in any event can assail the same.
Therefore, the petition is accordingly disposed of with the said observations.
Sd/- JUDGE akc/bms