- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31391 WP No. 21237 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.21237 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. BASAVARAJU H.H., S/O HOMBEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT HULLAHALLI VILLAGE AGASANAPURA POST KASABA HOBLI MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT- 571430 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATISH M. DODDAMANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SAGAR B.B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER INDIAN OIL CORPORATION Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31391 WP No. 21237 of 2025 MYSURU DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.36/A, 1ST FLOOR, B.N.ROAD MYSURU TRADE CENTRE, OPP. KSRTC BUS STAND, MYSURU- 570001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VACHAN H.U., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING ANNEXURE-M, BEARING ORDER DATED 23-05-2024 BEARING NO.IOC16974365028920, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ISSUE APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO ISSUE LETTER OF INTENT FOR ALLOTMENT OF RETAIL OUTLET DEALERSHIP AT ATUVANAHALLI VILLAGE, ON LEFT HAND SIDE TOWARDS HALAGURU, NATIONAL HIGHWAY 948, MANDYA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA TO THE PETITIONER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31391 WP No. 21237 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has successfully participated in the selection process for allotment of a Fuel Station in Athuvanahalli Village, Malavalli Taluk, Mandya District. The petitioner is aggrieved by the respondent's decision to cancel the allotment of the dealership to run a Fuel Station. The respondent has issued the impugned Communication informing the petitioner that during the field verification of credentials, it is verified that the property offered does not lie beyond 30 metres from the median of the Highway. 2. Mr. Satish M. Doddamani, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that this Court must intervene because [a] the decision to cancel the allotment to the petitioner is without due opportunity, and [b] the stipulation that the property must be beyond 30 metres from the edge of the median of the highway is not part of the tender - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31391 WP No. 21237 of 2025 notification. In response, Mr. Vachan H. U, the learned counsel for the respondent, without disputing that the stipulation is not part of the tender notification, submits that insistence on margin as aforesaid is because of the stipulation by the National Highway Authority of India [NHAI]. 3. Mr. Vachan H. U. underscores that the respondent will not be able to get its Fuel Station up and going without a No-Objection Certificate [NOC] from NHAI and that this Authority will not issue NOC unless there is a margin of 30 metres from the median of the Highway. On the due opportunity, the learned counsel invites this Court's attention to the petitioner's representation dated 04.06.2024 [Annexure - N] wherein, the petitioner has stated that he will not be able to comply with the requirement of a minimum margin. In rejoinder, Mr. Satish M. Doddamani, submits that the petitioner, even today can, if reasonable time is granted, make - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31391 WP No. 21237 of 2025 arrangements to ensure that the property for the Fuel Station will have a margin of 30 metres from the median of the Highway. 4. These rival submissions are considered in the light of the undisputed fact that the respondent, after the cancellation of the allotment in favour of the petitioner, has issued fresh applications and the offer by one of the applicants is accepted after necessary draw. In specific terms that the property offered must have a margin of 30 metres from the median of the road and the petitioner is informed for the first time at the time of field verification. There could be justification for the decision to cancel the allotment, but then, the respondent should have given a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to offer the land with the requisite margin before cancellation and the reason for this Court's interference is in these circumstances. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31391 WP No. 21237 of 2025 5. This Court is of the further view that while there must be an opportunity to the petitioner to offer the land with the aforementioned margin, the entire process begun after the cancellation of the award in favour of the petitioner need not be called off because if the petitioner, despite a reasonable opportunity does not offer the land that complies with this requirement, the respondent will have to begin the re- exercise needlessly. In the light of the afore, the following: ORDER a. The petition stands disposed of directing the respondent to defer completion of the allotment in favour of a third party for the period up to 15.10.2025 with liberty to the petitioner to ensure that the property offered has a margin of 30 metres from the median of the concerned Highway. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31391 WP No. 21237 of 2025 b. It is observed that if the petitioner, in exercise of the liberty reserved offers such property, the other transaction with the third party must yield; and if the petitioner fails, the respondent must be at liberty to complete the other transaction. c. The liberty is to ensure that the property offered meets the suitability criteria and not to offer an alternative land. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB