- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29189 WP No. 49970 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 49970 OF 2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. M/S BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, DUO PARK TRINITY NO.17, 7TH FLOOR, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY THE TERRITORY MANAGER/ KARNATAKA STATE CO-ORDINATOR 2. THE TERRITORY MANAGER M/S BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED BEHIND FCI GODWON, METAGALLI, MYSURU-570 016 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ARUNA SHYAM M, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SUYOG HERELE E., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SECRETARY KARNATAKA STATE SCHEDULED CASTE/ SCHEDULED TRIBES COMMISSION NO.14/3, 2ND FLOOR, CFC BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 2. KUMARI LANCHANA M.C. D/O SRI CHANNAKESHAVAIAH, AGED MAJOR NO.278, 1ST MAIN, 1ST STAGE, KAVERINAGAR, MANDYA CITY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.C.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 (ABSENT); Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29189 WP No. 49970 of 2017 NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.2 AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 15.09.2017 IN PROCEEDINGS NO.113/2017 [RES] PENDING BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. THIS PETITION, 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 petitioners have challenged the proceedings initiated by respondent No.1 in No.113/2017 and to quash the order dated 15.09.2017 passed therein. 2. The facts in brief are that respondent No.2 had applied for grant of petroleum dealership at Mandya District pursuant to paper publication dated 18.10.2014. The application of respondent No.2 was taken up for field verification and it was found that the property offered for the petroleum outlet did not match the requirement specified in the publication. Therefore, the application of respondent No.2 was rejected. The respondent No.2 challenged the said order - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29189 WP No. 49970 of 2017 before this Court in W.P.No.15113/2016. In the meanwhile, the petitioners offered that respondent No.2 may suggest an alternate site for establishment of the petroleum outlet. However, respondent No.2 did not comply with the same. Thereafter, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint before respondent No.1 seeking for a direction to the petitioners to grant a petroleum dealership at the land offered by respondent No.2. Based on such complaint, respondent No.1 issued a notice to the petitioners. The petitioners appeared and filed their objections challenging the authority of respondent No.1 to issue such a notice. It is stated that respondent No.1 without considering the objections, issued a further direction to the petitioners to provide petroleum dealership to respondent No.2. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court. 3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent No.2 had filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the rejection of the application for petroleum dealership and the said writ petition was disposed off directing respondent No.2 to avail alterative remedy of appeal before the appropriate authority. He contends that respondent - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29189 WP No. 49970 of 2017 No.2 has not availed the said remedy and has therefore, given up her claim. He thus contends that the impugned proceedings before the respondent No.1 cannot stand. He also contends that respondent No.1 cannot issue an order directing the petitioners to provide petroleum dealership to respondent No.2 on the premise that she was discriminated. He contends that it is not the authority of respondent No.1 to do so under the Karnataka State Commission for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2002 (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 2002'). He invited the attention of the Court to Section 8 of the Act, 2002 and contends that the Commission has no power to issue such direction as the powers of the Commission are circumscribed by Section 8 which confers powers on the Commission to investigate and examine the working of various safeguards provided in the Constitution of India or under any other law for the time being in force or under any order of the Government for the welfare and protection of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Karnataka. He therefore, contends that issuing a direction to the petitioners to grant petroleum dealership to respondent No.2 is beyond the functions conferred on the Commission. He therefore, contends - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29189 WP No. 49970 of 2017 that the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 dated 15.09.2017 in Proceedings No.113/2017 is liable to be quashed. 4. Respondent No.2 though served with the notice of this writ petition, has not appeared before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 is also absent and therefore, this Court did not have the benefit of his submission. 6. Be that as it may, the petitioners had issued a notification prescribing certain criteria for grant of petroleum dealership. Respondent No.2 was one such applicant. The petitioners on inspection of the site offered by respondent No.2 for establishment of the petroleum outlet, found that the site offered did not match or correspond with the measurement of the property facing the road, as mentioned by the petitioners in the notification. On that count, the petitioners had rejected the application of respondent No.2. If the respondent No.2 desired to offer an alternate site, she could have done so, in which event, the petitioners would have considered the same. Respondent No.2 has also not challenged the rejection of her - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29189 WP No. 49970 of 2017 application for petroleum dealership before the competent authority as held by this Court in W.P.No.15113/2016. Therefore, respondent No.2 cannot approach respondent No.1 to seek redressal of her grievance that she was not allotted petroleum dealership. The proper remedy for respondent No.2 was to challenge the rejection of her application for petroleum dealership before the competent authority. Under the circumstances, without going into the question whether respondent No.1 had the authority to issue such a direction or not, this writ petition deserves to be disposed off setting aside the order passed by respondent No.1, in view of the failure on the part of respondent No.2 in filing an appeal challenging the order of rejection of the application. 7. Hence, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 15.09.2017 passed by respondent No.1 in Proceedings No.113/2017 is set aside. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29189 WP No. 49970 of 2017 (iii) Consequently, the proceedings No.113/2017 before the respondent No.1 stands terminated. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33