- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32144 WP No. 18259 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 18259 OF 2021 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SATISH T.S. S/O SRINIVASA T.V. AGED 45 YEARS R/AT NO.85, THIRUMALAHATTI VILLAGE-563130 SANTHEHALLI POST, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M. NARAYANA BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR REGISTERED OFFICE AT: INDIAN OIL BHAVAN G-9, ALI YAVAR JUNG BANDRA (EAST) MUMBAI-400 051 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, HEAD OF DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT BANGALORE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., I FLOOR, KAY ARR ANJUMAN TOWERS NO.28, P. KALINGARAO ROAD, (MISION ROAD), BENGALURU-560 027 …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32144 WP No. 18259 of 2021 (BY SRI. AMBARISH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SANTOSH S. NAGARALE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER AND QUASH PARA 3 AND 4 OF THE COMMUNICATION AT ANNEXURE-E BEARING REFERENCE NO.15457218025973 DATED 24.07.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS THE SAME IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14, 19(1)(g) AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged the communication bearing No.15457218025973 dated 24.07.2021 issued by the respondent No.2 in so far as it relates to paragraph Nos.3 and 4 therein by which the candidature of the petitioner was moved from Group-1 to Group-3 for allotment of a retail petroleum outlet. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to consider his representation dated 12.08.2021 and restore his selection for Retail Outlet dealership at "within 2 KM from Railway Overbridge Junction" in Malur as intimated to him by respondent No.2 vide communications of even date i.e., 05.03.2021. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32144 WP No. 18259 of 2021 2. The petitioner contends that the respondent No.2 published a notification inviting applications for allotment of Regular and Rural Retail Outlet (Petrol Pump) dealership at Malur-Masti Road, Malur, Kolar District. The petitioner who was qualified in all respects and who also possessed a piece of land in Sy. No.113/3 of Channakal village, Kasaba Hobli, Malur Taluk, submitted his application. The petitioner was selected and a communication/email dated 05.03.2021 in this regard was addressed to him by respondent No.2. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the initial security deposit. Thereafter, he received an email from the respondent No.2 dated 05.03.2021 calling upon him to produce certain documents. The petitioner claims that he produced all the documents, one of which was relating to the leasehold right of the land which he had mentioned in the application and another was a sketch of the land with dimensions. The petitioner was thereafter informed by email dated 18.06.2021 that there was a mismatch with respect of his name as mentioned in the application and S.S.L.C certificate issued by the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board (KSEEB). The petitioner filed an affidavit in support of his name and initials. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32144 WP No. 18259 of 2021 Thereafter, he was called upon to produce the conversion order in respect of Sy. No.113 of Channakal village. He again received another communication dated 24.07.2021, by which he was intimated that since he did not produce copy of order of conversion within the stipulated time, his candidature was found ineligible, however, his candidature could be considered for selection along with Group-3 applicants as per guidelines. The petitioner contends that though furnishing the order of conversion was not a prerequisite for selection and nothing was mentioned in the brochure or in the notification or in the subsequent communications, the respondent No.2 informed him that he failed to produce copy of the conversion order and therefore, he is not eligible to be considered in Group-1 and that he would be considered for selection in Group-3 a little later. Thereafter, the petitioner produced the sketch and the copy of order of conversion before the respondent No.2. He also furnished a copy of Form No.10 by which Sy. No.113 of Channakal village was bifurcated. Though the petitioner had submitted these documents along with the representation dated 12.08.2021, the respondent No.2 did not reconsider his decision to consider the case of the petitioner in Group-3. The - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32144 WP No. 18259 of 2021 petitioner is, therefore, before this Court challenging para Nos.3 and 4 of the communication dated 24.07.2021 issued by the respondent No.2 by which it was held that the petitioner was not eligible to be considered in Group-1 and that his candidature will be considered in Group-3 in due course. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider his representation dated 12.08.2021 and restore his selection for allotment of Retail Outlet dealership as intimated to him by the respondent No.2 in terms of communications of even date i.e 05.03.2021. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that 01 Acre of land in Sy. No.113 of Channakal village was converted for non-agricultural and commercial use and that the petitioner had taken a lease in respect of 12 guntas of land in Sy. No.113 which was bifurcated and assigned Sy. No.113/3. He contends that the petitioner was not required to furnish any documents indicating the conversion of land for commercial usage when he filed the application in response to the notification issued by the respondent No.2. He, therefore, contends that the respondent No.2 was bound to reconsider the case of the petitioner after he produced the relevant documents in proof of the fact that - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32144 WP No. 18259 of 2021 the land offered was converted for commercial use. He, therefore, prays that a suitable direction be issued to the respondents to restore selection of the candidature of the petitioner for allotment of Retail Outlet Dealership by considering his application. 4. The petition is opposed by the respondent No.2, who admits that the petitioner was selected for allotment of a Retail Outlet Dealership. However, the Committee constituted for scrutinizing the documents submitted by the petitioner found certain rectifiable deficiencies and therefore, addressed an email dated 18.06.2021 to comply the deficiencies: (i) that there was a mismatch in the name of the petitioner in the application as well as his name mentioned in the KSEEB certificate; (ii) that the petitioner did not submit copy of the conversion order in respect of the land offered and (iii) that the petitioner was directed to comply with these deficiencies within 08.07.2021 and was also intimated that if he failed to do so, his candidature will be moved to Group-3 applicants. It is contended that as per Clause 14(E)(x) of the brochure for selection of Dealers for Regular and Rural Retail outlets, in case the rectified documents (for cases other than related to offered - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32144 WP No. 18259 of 2021 land) are not submitted within the stipulated time or the submitted rectified documents are not as per requirement, intimation regarding rejection of his candidature will be sent to the selected candidate. However, if documents related to offered land are not submitted or the offered land cannot be accepted even after receiving rectified documents relating to land, the applicant will be given intimation regarding consideration of his/her candidature along with Group-3 applicants. It is submitted that in accordance with the Clause 14 of the said brochure, the petitioner was given 21 days time to produce a copy of the order of conversion of the land offered, but he failed to do so. Therefore, the respondent No.2 was perforced to take a decision to cancel the selection of the petitioner for allotment of Retail Dealership outlet and moved him to Group-3. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the petitioner is bound to furnish the documents within the stipulated time. He contends that if the petitioner was in possession of the order of conversion of the land offered, nothing prevented him from producing the same within the stipulated time. He further contends that the respondents - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32144 WP No. 18259 of 2021 have a large organization and have fixed norms which are applicable all over the Country. He contends that if the petitioner has failed to comply with the directions issued by the respondent No.2, it had no other option than to proceed in accordance with Clause 14 of the brochure for selection of Dealers for Regular and Rural Retail outlets as stated above. He, therefore, contends that the impugned communication issued by the respondent No.2 to the petitioner is just and proper and in accordance with the said brochure and no interference is warranted. Besides this, he contends that the property that was offered for establishing the Retail Petroleum Outlet was Sy. No.113/3 of Channakal village measuring 12 guntas as per the lease deed dated 24.12.2018. However, the property shown by the petitioner in the survey sketch will indicate that the property is not Sy. No.113/3 but it is Sy. No.113/1. He, therefore, contends that the question whether the petitioner has taken the property bearing Sy. No.113/1 or 113/3 is doubtful and therefore, it is not proper at this stage to consider the case of the petitioner. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32144 WP No. 18259 of 2021 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 7. The petitioner had taken the land bearing Sy. No.113/3 of Channakal village, which was a portion of the land in Sy. No.113 of Channakal Village which converted for non- agricultural commercial use as per the order of conversion dated 10.01.2001 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Kolar. It is on the basis of this that the petitioner was selected for establishment of a Retail Petroleum Outlet. The respondent No.2 had called upon the petitioner to furnish documents such as the order of conversion to justify that the land offered was converted for commercial use. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have produced those documents before the respondent No.2. The delay on the part of the petitioner in producing these documents is though not justified, but yet mere delay should not result in depriving an opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the process of establishing the Retail Petroleum Outlet, which would have been a means of livelihood. Under the circumstances, the impugned communication addressed by the respondent No.2 rejecting the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32144 WP No. 18259 of 2021 candidature of the petitioner in Group-1 and informing him that his candidature would be considered along with Group-3 applicants warrants interference. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law and after considering the documents furnished by the petitioner. The same shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 9. In view of disposal of this petition, I.A. No.1/2023 for vacating the interim order does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed off. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42