- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34506 WP No. 56395 of 2018 C/W WP No. 13118 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 56395 OF 2018 (GM-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 13118 OF 2017 (GM-RES) IN WP No. 56395/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. RANGANATHA S/O SRI. RANGASWAMAIAH, AGED: 38 YEARS, R/AT SHANIMAHATHMA TEMPLE ROAD, KAIDALA, GULUR HOBLI, TUMAKUR TALUK, TUMAKUR DSITRICT-572118. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DILLIRAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.N. SUBBA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND 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. Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34506 WP No. 56395 of 2018 C/W WP No. 13118 of 2017 3. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, NO.L36/A, 1ST FLOOR, B.N.ROAD, MYSORE TRADE CENTRE, OPP: KSRTC BUS STAND, MYSORE-570001. 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. TIMMANNA BHAT, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. VACHAN H.U., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES PUBLISHED IN THE SUNDAY TIMES OF INDIA DAILY NEWSPAPER DATED 25.11.2018 IN SO FAR AS SL.NO.2328 NAGAVALLI, WITHIN 0.5 KM FROM PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE AT TUMKUR DISTRICT NOTICE FOR APPOINTMENT OF REGULAR/RURAL RETAIL OUTLET DEALERSHIP IS CONCERNED VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND A1. IN WP NO. 13118/2017 BETWEEN: SRI. RANGANATHA S/O. SRI. RANGASWAMAIAH, AGED: 37, R/AT SHANIMAHATHMA TEMPLE ROAD, KAIDALA, GULUR HOBLI, TUMAKUR TALUK, TUMAKUR DISTRICT-572118 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. DILLIRAJAN FOR SRI.K.N. SUBBA REDDY, ADVOCATES) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34506 WP No. 56395 of 2018 C/W WP No. 13118 of 2017 AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND 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 SENIOR DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, NO. L36/A, 1ST FLOOR, B.N. ROAD, MYSORE TRADE CENTRE, OPP: KSRTC BUS STAND, MYSORE-570001. 4. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, NO.29, P. KALINGARAO ROAD, (MISSION ROAD), BENGALURU-560027, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR-572101 6. SRI K.P.SHIVA KUMAR S/O SRI PUTTAHUCHAIAH, SAMPIGE HOSSAHALLI POST, DANNDINASHIVARA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMKUR-572227. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34506 WP No. 56395 of 2018 C/W WP No. 13118 of 2017 AMENDED BY THE VIRTUE OF ORDER DATED 21.04.2025 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GURURAJ YADRAVI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. PRASHANTH KUMAR S.T., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4; SRI. SRINIVASA KUMAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.5; SRI. FAYAZ SAB B.G., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.6) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION / ORDER DATED 21.02.2017 IN NO.MYSDO:R:724 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND FURTHER TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO PROCEED WITH THE SELECTION OF RO DEALERSHIP BY VIRTUE OF THE PAPER PUBLICATION DATED 11.10.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND TO ISSUE LETTER OF INTENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SL.NO.16 AT PAGE 22 OF BROCHURE VIDE ANNEXURE-D. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner in W.P.No.56395/2018 has challenged a publication issued by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 in Sunday Times of India, daily news paper dated 25.11.2018 in so far as it relates to Sl.No.2328 of Nagavalli within 0.5 km from Primary Health Centre at Tumkur district and notice for appointment of a regular/rural outlet dealership. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34506 WP No. 56395 of 2018 C/W WP No. 13118 of 2017 2. He had earlier called in question the communication dated 21.02.2017 issued by the respondent No.3 bearing No.MysDO:R:724 in W.P.No.13118/2017 and to direct the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to proceed with the selection of retail outlet dealership as per the paper publication dated 11.10.2014 and to issue letter of intent in accordance with Sl.No.16 at page No.22 of the brochure. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the letter of intent bearing No.N/2016/IN000709/KAR/000105/4305/00020 dated 14.12.2016 issued by the respondent No.4. Facts as pleaded in W.P.No.13118/2017: 3. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 published a notification in ‘Times Nation’ English daily newspaper on 11.10.2014 inviting applications from eligible candidates for allotment of a retail outlet dealership at Nagavalli on Tumkur road within 01 k.m., from the bus stop on right hand side under the open category. The respondents published the brochure containing the mode and manner of selection of dealers. The petitioner contends that since he was desirous of taking a dealership, he submitted an application. He contends that as per the brochure, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34506 WP No. 56395 of 2018 C/W WP No. 13118 of 2017 he was supposed to maintain a balance of Rs.25,00,000/- in his account as on 01.12.2014. After submission of the application, a partial amount was withdrawn on 01.12.2014 to meet some exigency. The petitioner's application was cleared in all respects and the respondent No.3 issued a communication that the application of the petitioner would be included in the draw of lots. The petitioner contends that he was selected on 24.08.2016. However till 3rd week of February, 2017, he did not receive any communication from the respondents regarding dealership and therefore, he could not take any steps. He contends that while he was awaiting the issuance of letter of intent by the respondents, he received a text message from the respondent No.4 on his mobile phone on 10.01.2017 requiring him to meet Mr.Ramesh Babu, Senior Manager and Mr. Srikanth Reddy, sales officer on the following day at Mysore. The petitioner claims that he met the said officers who informed him that the selection process was completed and issuance of letter of intent was pending which would be communicated to him shortly between second week of January and 3rd week of February. The respondents did not issue letter of intent and therefore, the petitioner addressed a letter dated - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34506 WP No. 56395 of 2018 C/W WP No. 13118 of 2017 20.02.2017 to the respondent No.3. However, to his shock and surprise, he received a communication from the respondent No.3 on 21.02.2017 that the petitioner is ineligible for retail outlet dealership, as he did not maintain sufficient balance in his account till cutoff date i.e., 01.12.2014 when field verification was done. The petitioner contends that this change of mind of the respondents was for reasons unknown and that respondents did not even issue show-cause notice before addressing the impugned communication. After receipt of the said order, the petitioner objected the same by his representation dated 08.03.2017 along with requisite fee. However, the respondents did not consider the objections of the petitioner. The petitioner has therefore, challenged the order of rejection of his application for the retail outlet dealership. This Court had granted an interim order on 12.04.2017 directing the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to maintain status-quo relating to the selection process of the retail outlet dealership at Nagavalli on Tumkur road under the open category. Nonetheless, the respondents had issued a letter of intent in favour of Mr.Shivakumar on 14.12.2016. The - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34506 WP No. 56395 of 2018 C/W WP No. 13118 of 2017 petitioner has therefore challenged the letter of intent granted to him. Facts as pleaded in W.P.No.56395/2018: 4. In continuation of the facts as pleaded in W.P.No.13118/2017, the petitioner contends that after this Court granted status-quo in W.P.No.13118/2017, the respondents Nos.2 to 4 have issued a letter of intent in favour of one Mr. Shivakumar on 14.12.2016 at Nagavalli, Tumkur road. He contends that this illegal act of the respondents was brought to the notice of this Court in W.P.No.13118/2017 and the respondents have held their hands and not taken any steps in furtherance thereto. However, they had issued a fresh notice for appointment of regular/rural retail outlet dealership across the State of Karnataka at 2433 locations. The petitioner therefore, has challenged the publication dated 25.11.2018 issued by the respondents in ‘Times Nation’ newspaper dated 25.11.2008 in so far as it relates to Sl.No.2328 i.e., at Nagavalli within 0.5 k.m. from primary health Centre at Tumkur district. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34506 WP No. 56395 of 2018 C/W WP No. 13118 of 2017 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner in both these writ petitions submitted that the petitioner was qualified in all respects for allotment of the retail outlet dealership and therefore, the respondents had issued a letter of intent in favour of the petitioner. He contends that as per the brochure for selection of dealers, the petitioner was expected to maintain a balance of Rs.25,00,000/- in his account as on 01.12.2014. He contends that the petitioner did have the balance on 01.12.2014 but by afternoon on 01.12.2014 he withdrew a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- out of Rs.25,00,000/-. He therefore, contends that the respondents could not have held that the petitioner was not eligible. At any rate, he contends that once the petitioner was selected for draw of lots and as he was selected, the respondents before holding that the petitioner was not eligible, must have put him on notice. He contends that the purpose of maintaining the deposit of Rs.25,00,000/- was only to establish the financial ability of the petitioner to run the outlet and nothing more. He contends that the petitioner had maintained the balance from the date of the application till the date when he withdrew a sum of R.10,00,000/- which was more than enough to establish his financial ability. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34506 WP No. 56395 of 2018 C/W WP No. 13118 of 2017 6. Per contra, the respondents have filed objections to the petitions contending that though the petitioner was not selected in draw of lots, for the retail outlet dealership, on 24.08.2016, however, when the field verification of credentials was conducted, it was found that the petitioner was not eligible to be selected, as he did not have sufficient balance on the cut off date. They contend that the petitioner had withdrawn a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- on 01.12.2014 and hence, he was not eligible. It is contended that as per the guidelines, the petitioner was bound to maintain a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- in the savings bank account as on the last date of the submission of the application for dealership which was 01.12.2014. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner failed to fulfill the eligibility condition stipulated in Clause – 4(v) of the application for selection of retail outlet dealership. They contend that as per the guidelines, the case of the petitioner warranted cancellation of his candidature. Accordingly, the respondents addressed a letter dated 21.02.2017 that he was found to be not eligible for the dealership. 7. In W.P.No,.56395/2018 the respondents Nos.2 to 4 have filed objections contending that on 25.11.2018 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34506 WP No. 56395 of 2018 C/W WP No. 13118 of 2017 applications were invited for setting up retail outlet throughout the State of Karnataka and one such location was at Nagavalli within 0.5 k.m., from Primary Health Centre. They contend that though this Court had directed to maintain status-quo on 12.04.2017 in W.P.No.13118/2017, they did not invite applications for retail outlet at Nagavali on Tumkur within 01 k.m., from the bus stop on the right hand side but it was within 0.5 k.m., from the primary healthy centre in Nagavalli. They contend that if the petitioner succeeded in W.P.No.13118/2017, he would be entitled to set up retail outlet at the location offered by him, else, Mr. Shivakumar who was issued with letter of intent would be eligible to establish the outlet. They contend that in view of the volume of vehicular traffic in that area, two retail outlets of the respondents could generate enough business as they were on either side of the road. With these, the respondents contend that the petitioner cannot have any grievance against establishing the second outlet. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cutoff date admittedly was 01.12.2014 and as on that date, the petitioner had the minimum balance of Rs.25,00,000/- in his savings bank account. He contends that due to some - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34506 WP No. 56395 of 2018 C/W WP No. 13118 of 2017 exigency a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was withdrawn. However, he contends that there was no requirement that such balance had to be maintained till field verification inspection was done. He further submits that till date, the respondents have not established an outlet at the advertised location and therefore, no hardship would be caused to them if the petitioner is entrusted with the dealership. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was expected to maintain balance of Rs.25,00,000/- till the end of banking hours on 01.12.2014. He contends that since the petitioner had withdrawn a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- he did not have the requisite balance and therefore, was not eligible. He contends that if the petitioner is ineligible then the next eligible candidate had to be issued letter of intent and accordingly a letter of intent was issued to next eligible candidate Mr. Shivakumar. He also contends that the question whether a second dealership could be granted on the same road is a matter of policy of the respondents based on commercial consideration and therefore, the petitioner cannot question the commercial wisdom of the respondents in - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34506 WP No. 56395 of 2018 C/W WP No. 13118 of 2017 inviting applications for establishing second dealership on the other side of the road. 10. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4. 11. It is not in dispute that the petitioner possessed all qualification and eligibility for establishing a retail outlet dealership of the respondents at Nagavalli on Tumkur road within 01 k.m., from the bus stop on the right hand side under the open category. It is also not in dispute that in the draw of lots, the petitioner emerged successful. 12. It is relevant to note that as per Clause 4(v) of the brochure for selection of regular and rural retail outlet dealership, the fund required for eligibility was a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-. The petitioner did have a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as on 01.12.2014 which was the cut off date, namely the last date for receipt of application against the notification issued by the respondents. The respondents have highlighted the requirement that they would verify the availability of funds as on cutoff date during the field - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34506 WP No. 56395 of 2018 C/W WP No. 13118 of 2017 verification inspection. The petitioner has stated that he withdrew a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- on 01.12.2014 at 03:00 p.m. 13. A perusal of the brochure does not indicate that the petitioner was expected to maintain the balance till the closing of banking hours on 01.12.2014. It only mandated that the application should have a balance as on the cutoff date which would be verified during field verification inspection. Under the circumstances, the respondents must have called upon the petitioner to show cause before taking the drastic measure of disqualifying him. 14. In view of the above, the petitioner deserves to be granted another opportunity to participate in the process, in the event the respondents propose to establish retail outlets at the advertised locations. In view of long lapse of time from the date of disqualification of the petitioner till date when this petition is taken up for final disposal, the general public should also be permitted to participate in the process so as to ensure that everyone has an opportunity. As regards the notification issued by the respondents for establishing another retail outlet, in a nearby location, this is purely a commercial decision taken - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34506 WP No. 56395 of 2018 C/W WP No. 13118 of 2017 by the respondents and the petitioner cannot challenge the said wisdom of the respondents. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Caretel Infotech Ltd., Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. – (2019) 14 SCC 81 where it was held that the Courts cannot sit in judgment over commercial decisions taken by commercial entities which are based on various data and other considerations. If the respondents are of the opinion that establishing two retail outlets in the nearby vicinity would not impact the business, this Court cannot supplement the wisdom of the respondents. Therefore, the challenge to the publication issued on 25.11.2018, has to fail. 15. In view of the above, W.P.No.11318/2017 is allowed in part. The impugned order rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for allotment of a retail petroleum dealership at as per Annexure - A is quashed. If the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 desire to establish the outlets at the location advertised earlier, they are directed to issue a fresh notification inviting applications from eligible candidate for the retail dealership at Nagavalli on Tumkuru road within 01 k.m., from Primary Health Centre at Tumkur under the open category. If respondent - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34506 WP No. 56395 of 2018 C/W WP No. 13118 of 2017 Nos.2, 3 and 4 issue a notification, the petitioner is at liberty to participate in the process and the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner without being influenced by the order dated 21.02.2017 which is quashed in this petition. Consequently, subject to the rules of respondents he is also at liberty to apply against any other notification that may be published by the respondents. 16. W.P.No.56395/2018 is dismissed. It is however, open for the petitioner to participate in the process, if respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 issue a fresh notification inviting applications from eligible candidates for retail dealership at Nagavalli, Tumkuar road within 0.5 k.m., from the Primary Health Centre at Tumkur District. 17. In view of disposal of petitions, pending interlocutory applications if any, in any of these petitions do not survive for consideration and the same stands rejected. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46