- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9405 WP No. 102032 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.102032 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: M/S. MUJAWAR PETROLEUMS, SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERNED, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SHRI. HUSSAINSAB S/O. HASANSAB MUJAWAR, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O: DUPADAL, TQ: SAVADATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 306. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, AND SRI. ROSHAN SAHEB CHABBI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI, D. C. COMPOUND, BELAGAVI – 590 001. 3. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, MARKETING DIVISION, DIVISIONAL OFFICE BELAGAVI, KHANAPUR ROAD, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI – 590 006, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI C.V.ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI C.K.NANDAKUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. RAGHURAM CADAMBI, ADVOCATE FOR R4) GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Date: 2025.08.01 15:09:27 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9405 WP No. 102032 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED NIL BEARING NUMBER DC/PTL/CR-40/2023-24 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING - INTERLOCUTORY APPLN THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: A. Issue a Writ of Certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated Nil bearing number DC/PTL/CR-40/2023-24 passed by Respondent No.2 vide Annexure-A. B. pass any such other order as this Hon'ble court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice and equity. 2. The brief facts of the case are; 2.1. The petitioner is a retailer in petroleum products having obtained agency from respondent No.3 - Indian Oil Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IOCL’, for short). 2.2. The petitioner had established a petrol pump in Survey No.146/K2 and 146/B2, measuring 14 and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9405 WP No. 102032 of 2025 16 guntas respectively, at Karalakatti Village, Savadatti Taluk, Belagavi District, after getting the same converted from agricultural to non- agricultural purposes. The petrol pump being run from 2011, the dealership agreement is in force for a period of 15 years, i.e., until 29.12.2026. 2.3. Respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner, having directed Respondent No.3 - IOCL, to close the pump and shift it to another location, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 3. The submission of Sri. Shivraj Balloli, learned counsel for the petitioner is that; 3.1. During the currency of the agreement between the petitioner and Respondent No.3, Respondent No.2 could not have directed shifting of the petrol pump. The petitioner, having set up the petrol pump on his own land, the question of the Deputy Commissioner or IOCL directing shifting before - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9405 WP No. 102032 of 2025 the expiry of the dealership agreement would not arise. 3.2. One M/s.Greenko KA 01, IREP Private Limited, who is Respondent No.4 herein, had purchased the lands of the petitioner adjoining the petrol pump for setting up a renewable electricity plant. At the time of registration of the sale deeds, Respondent No.4 - Greenko, had fraudulently, by deception, got the petitioner to sign and register an agreement to sale. 3.3. The petitioner came to know subsequently about transfer of monies made into his account under the said agreement of sale. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner filed suits in O.S.No.100/2025 and 104/2025 before the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Savadatti, seeking permanent injunction and mandatory injunction, calling upon Greenko to cancel the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9405 WP No. 102032 of 2025 agreement of sale by receiving the consideration paid. 3.4. It is at the instance of Greenko that Respondent No.2 has issued direction to Respondent No.3. The same cannot be binding on the parties. The petitioner having filed the aforesaid suits against Respondent No.4, until adjudication of the said suits, Respondent No.4 - Greenko, cannot claim any right in the property subject matter of the alleged agreement of sale, and as such, there could be no direction which could have been issued by Respondent No.2 to Respondent No.3. 4. Sri. C. K. Nandakumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.4, would submit that; 4.1. There is a registered agreement of sale which has been entered into by the petitioner in favour of Greenko. In terms of the said agreement, the petitioner and his family members, who are also consenting parties to the said agreement, have - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9405 WP No. 102032 of 2025 agreed to sell the property on which the petrol pump is established for a sum of ₹3,01,00,000/-, out of which a sum of ₹2,00,00,000 was paid by way of RTGS on 12.09.2024, a day prior to the execution of the agreement of sale, and the balance sum of ₹1,01,00,000/- was agreed to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. 4.2. Greenko is establishing an Integrated Renewable Project of solar, hydel, and wind, is required to carry out various development activities, including certain blasting activities to level the land. It is for that reason that Greenko agreed to buy the property of the petitioner. The petitioner has, under the agreement of sale, permitted Greenko to coordinate with the concerned authorities to obtain approvals or permissions for shifting of the petrol pump, and as such, in pursuance thereof, Greenko has approached the concerned authorities, who have processed the application - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9405 WP No. 102032 of 2025 for shifting. It is in pursuance thereof that Respondent No.2 had issued the directions. 4.3. There is no fraud, coercion, or the like, which has been played by Greenko on the petitioner, inasmuch as a sum of ₹2,00,00,000/- was paid a day before the agreement of sale was registered. It is after receiving the said money that the petitioner had come forward to register the agreement of sale. 4.4. The amounts having been received on 12.09.2024, on 13.09.2024, the petitioner had transferred an amount of ₹65,00,000/-, which was followed by further transfers of ₹75,00,000/- on 17.09.2024, an amount of ₹25,00,000/- on 25.09.2024, and further amount of ₹32,00,000/- on 14.10.2024 to the family members of the petitioner from and out of the advance consideration received under the agreement. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9405 WP No. 102032 of 2025 4.5. Thus, the consideration having been agreed upon, and the petitioner having used the consideration for dispersal among the family members, even the conduct of the petitioner goes against the allegation of fraud and cheating which has been made by the petitioner against Greenko. 4.6. The petitioners have sought to delay the matter so as to delay the project of Greenko, to cause harm, loss, and injury to Greenko, and to coerce Greenko to come to terms with the demands of the petitioner. 4.7. In that background, he submits that the process of the Trial Court and this Court has been used and abused by the petitioner to achieve the personal ends of the petitioner. 4.8. He also relies upon the letter dated 22.06.2023 produced along with the statement of objection at Annexure-R1, to contend that, even the petitioner had written a letter on 22.06.2023 for shifting the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9405 WP No. 102032 of 2025 petrol pump, and in that letter, there is a reference made that a company has acquired land for setting up of the power project, which is a reference to Greenko. 4.9. Thus, it was always the intention of the petitioner to shift the petrol pump, and once the agreement of sale was entered into, it became an obligation on the part of the petitioner to shift the petrol pump. Now, with an intention to coerce Greenko, the petitioner has resorted to the above tactics. 4.10. There are arbitration proceedings, which has been initiated by issuance of notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has also been filed, which is pending consideration on account of the petitioner not having consented to the named arbitrator in the Section 21 notice. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9405 WP No. 102032 of 2025 5. Sri. Shivaraj S. Balloli, learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, would submit that the earlier letter which had been issued was for a different purpose. The said letter is not the basis for issuance of the order by Respondent No.2 at Annexure-A, and as such, the same has no relevance in the present matter. 6. Sri. Sharad V. Magdum, learned AGA appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2, submits that, not only the request of the petitioner dated 22.06.2023, but other factors have also been taken into consideration by Respondent No.2 while directing the shifting. The Deputy Commissioner has also taken into consideration that an important project for the State of Karnataka is being established, and the delay is impinging upon the successful implementation of the project. He therefore submits that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is proper and correct and does not require interference. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9405 WP No. 102032 of 2025 7. Sri. C. V. Angadi, learned counsel appearing for IOCL, however submits that a decision has been taken in terms of the policy to shift the petrol bunk of the petitioner, and insofar as IOCL is concerned, IOCL has no objection as regards the order passed by Respondent No.2, and Respondent No.3 has directed the petitioner to shift the petrol pump as per the order passed by Respondent No.2. 8. Heard Sri.Shivaraj S. Balloli, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Sharad V. Magadum, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri.C. V. Angadi, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri.C. K. Nandakumar, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.4. Perused the papers. 9. What is essentially challenged in the present matter is the order of the Deputy Commissioner directing IOCL to shift the petrol pump established under the aegis of IOCL in terms of the dealership agreement entered into between the IOCL and the petitioner. Though - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9405 WP No. 102032 of 2025 there are several contentions which have been taken up, more so as regards an agreement of sale entered into by the petitioner with Respondent No.4 - Greenko, and the petitioner's contention that the said agreement of sale has been obtained by fraud, coercion, etc., the same are subject to the suit in O.S. No.100/2025 and 104/2025 before the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Savadatti as also the Arbitral proceedings initiated. As such, those contentions and allegations, as also the counter-allegations, would be decided in those proceedings. 10. What is required to be considered is that the petitioner had, vide letter dated 22.06.2023, requested permission for shifting of the petrol pump, which has been suppressed by the petitioner while filing the above petition. The petitioner himself, having sought for the shifting and thereafter having executed an agreement of sale with Greenko on 13.09.2024 after receiving the advance consideration amount of - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9405 WP No. 102032 of 2025 ₹2,00,00,000/- after deduction of TDS of ₹10,00,000/-, has thereafter contended that the agreement has been entered into by fraud. 11. The sequence of events would also indicate that the petitioner and his family members have executed a sale deed on 12.09.2024 in favour of Greenko in respect of 2 acres of adjoining land in Survey No.146B of Karalakatti village for a total consideration of ₹1,20,00,000/-. What could be seen is that the adjoining land has been sold at ₹60,00,000/- an acre, another sale deed has been executed on 12.09.2024 in favour of Greenko for an extent of 3 acres 10 guntas in Survey No.146/K1 and 146/D1 for a total consideration of ₹1,95,00,000/- and thereafter another sale deed on the very same date in respect of 1 acre 25 guntas in Survey No.169/2 of Karalakatti village for consideration of ₹97,50,000/-. 12. The subject land on which the petrol pump has been established measures in all 30 guntas, which has been - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9405 WP No. 102032 of 2025 agreed to be sold for ₹3,01,00,000/-. The adjoining land has been sold for around ₹60,00,000/- per acre, whereas the present subject land has been agreed to be sold for nearly ₹4 crores an acre. 13. Thus, at this stage I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the agreement of sale has been executed by fraud and or coercion. It would have to be established by the petitioner in the pending suits and or the other proceedings, which would be decided independently in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observations made herein. 14. The action taken by respondent No.2 in furtherance of the request made by the petitioner on 22.06.2023 received by respondent No.2 on 23.06.2023, which has been quoted in the impugned order at Annexure-A cannot be found fault with. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9405 WP No. 102032 of 2025 15. In that view of the matter, the petitioner not making out any ground, the petition stands dismissed. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE gab – upto para 10 SH – para 11 to end CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33