- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9226 WP No. 40679 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 40679 OF 2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. P. SATISH KUMAR S/O PEDDANNA C AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.33/1, ADUR VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU 560049 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUBBA REDDY K N .,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM & NATURAL GAS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA SHASTRY BHAVAN NEW DELHI 110001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED KARNATAKA STATE OFFICE, INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, NO.29, P KALINGARAO ROAD, (MISSION ROAD) BENGALURU 560027 REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE HEAD 3. THE CHIEF DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, INDIAN OIL BHAVAN , NO.29, P KALINGA RAO ROAD, Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9226 WP No. 40679 of 2017 (MISSION ROAD) BENGALURU 560027 4. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED INDIAN OIL BHAVAN NO.29, P KALINGARAO ROAD, (MISSION ROAD), BENGALURU 560027 REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAHUL P S, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4 SMT APARNA LV, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION / ORDER DATED 29.9.2016 ISSUED BY R-3 AT ANNEX-A AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO RECONSIDER THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 29.11.2014 AT ANNEX-D AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: I. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any writ or order quashing the impugned communication/order dated 29.09.2016 in No.BDO:Rural ROI/I issued by the respondent No.3 vide annexure-A and direct the respondent authorities to reconsider the application filed by the petitioner dated 29.11.2014 vide Annexure-D. II. Issue any other writ or order/s as this Hon’ble court deems fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9226 WP No. 40679 of 2017 2. The petitioner had applied for grant of a retail outlet dealership at Bidarahalli location in pursuance of paper publication published in English daily newspaper ‘Times of India’ dated 11.10.2014 by respondent No.3. The location indicated therein is Bidarahalli (Bidarahalli bus stop to Adur Bus Stop on Avalalli Road), the said location was reserved for category-CC2, which includes physically handicapped persons, outstanding sports persons and freedom fighters. 3. The petitioner being qualified for the said dealership as he is a physically handicapped person, expected that the same would be allotted to him. The petitioner received a letter dated 29.06.2016 vide Annexure-A stating that the petitioner's application was rejected on account of discrepancies. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Dilli Rajan is that, the rejection is made on two grounds. Both of which are not permissible inasmuch as the first ground of rejection being the balance of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9226 WP No. 40679 of 2017 Rs.12,00,637/- as stated in the affidavit has not been maintained in the account contending that on verification by the Field Verification Committee during the field visit, the said amount was not available with the petitioner. However, the petitioner had taken out a Demand Draft for a sum of Rs.50,000/- to be paid to respondent No.3 for consideration of the application submitted by the petitioner. If the said amount is taken into consideration, the affidavit filed on 28.11.2014 was correct inasmuch as, as on that date, there was an amount of Rs.12,00,637/- which is available. It is only because of the Demand Draft having taken out in favour of respondent No.3, that the amount has been reduced by the said sum i.e., (Rs.50,000/- + Demand Draft charges thereon). It is submitted that, this fact is evidenced in the letter dated 29.9.2016 itself wherein, the respondents have called upon the petitioner to collect the Demand Draft of Rs.50,000/-, which is stated to be in possession of Respondent No.3. Reference is also placed on the account statement produced by the petitioner at Annexure - F, which indicates that apart from the said - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9226 WP No. 40679 of 2017 amount of Rs.50,000/- + Rs.140/- towards the Demand Draft charges, there was an amount of Rs.11,50,000/- is available in the said account. 5. As regards the second ground for rejection, he submits that location of the property offered by the petitioner is on Adur Village. There is no reservation of any other other petrol bunk near the location offered by the petitioner. It is indicated in the Notification itself that the location of the retail outlet is Bidarahalli (Bidarahalli bus stop to Adur bus stop on Avalahalli Road). The same ought to have been taken into consideration by the respondents. 6. He further submits that both the contentions taken by the respondents not being sustainable, the petitioner’s application ought to have been favourably considered and allotment to be made. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that when the field verification was done, an amount of Rs.12,00,637/- was not available and insofar as the Demand Draft is concerned, he submits as regards the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9226 WP No. 40679 of 2017 consideration of application filed by the petitioner under CC2 - category, there being no requirement for Demand Draft of Rs.50,000/- being submitted the requirement being only in respect of functioning of company retail outlet. Thus, he submits that the fact of amount mentioned in the affidavit not being the same, the discrepancy as pointed out in the filed visit has been rightly considered by the respondents. 8. As regards the location, he submits that the location fixed by the respondents was in Bidarahalli (through Bidarahalli bus stop to Alur Bus Stop on Avalahalli Road) has been mentioned, the property was required to be within the Bidarahalli limits. The property of the petitioner admittedly falls in Adur village limits and not in Bidarahalli Village. Therefore, the same has been rightly rejected by the respondents. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and perused papers. 10. The contentions of both the counsels have been indicated hereinabove. The only two issues which are required to - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9226 WP No. 40679 of 2017 be considered by this Court are whether the shortage of Rs.50,296/- on account of Demand Draft taken out by the petitioner for payment to the respondents can be said to a discrepancy in the affidavit filed and the amount available in the bank account and secondly, whether the location of the property in Adur Village limits would disentitle the petitioner for consideration of the application. 11. Insofar as the first contention is concerned, there was an amount of Rs.12,00,637.96 standing in the credit of the petitioner as on 24.11.2014. An amount of Rs.102/- was deducted by the Bank on 28.11.2014 as charges, leaving balance of Rs.12,00,535.96. On 28.11.2024, the petitioner took out the Demand Draft in favour of respondent No.3 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- as regards which the banking charges of Rs.140/- was levied. When this amount was deducted, the balance amount was Rs.11,50,395.96. There is no dispute about the Demand Draft having been handed over to respondent No.3. If that be so, I am of the considered opinion that there is no discrepancy in the account and that the account - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9226 WP No. 40679 of 2017 statement itself indicates that an amount of Rs.50,410/- was towards Demand Draft issued in favour of respondent No.3 Hence, the first ground of rejection of the petitioner’s application is not sustainable and stands rejected. 12. Insofar as the second ground is concerned, the Notification dated 11.10.2014 indicates the location of the property between Bidarahalli bus stop to Adur Bus stop on Avalahalli Road. There is no specific reservation made by the respondents that the property has to be within the Bidarahalli village limits. The fact that the petitioner’s property is in Adur village limits would not make any difference i.e., it is on Avalahalli Road between Bidarahalli Bus Stop to Adur Bus Stop. In that view of the matter, the second contention also is not sustainable and is rejected. 13. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:9226 WP No. 40679 of 2017 ii. Annexure-A dated 29.09.2016 issued by respondent No.3 is quashed. iii. Mandamus is issued directing the respondents to consider the application dated 29.11.2014 at Annexure-D in terms of the observation made hereinabove within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE BS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12