- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12069-DB WA No. 100472 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO. 100472 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: M/S. MUJAWAR PETROLEUMS, A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SHRI HUSSAINSAB S/O. HASANSAB MUJAWAR, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O. DUPADAL, TQ. SAVADATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591306. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHIVRAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI, D. C. COMPOUND, Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12069-DB WA No. 100472 of 2025 BELAGAVI-590001. 3. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, MARKETING DIVISION, DIVISIONAL OFFICE BELAGAVI, KHANAPUR ROAD, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI-590006, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER. 4. M/S. GREENKO KA01 IREP PRIVATE LIMITED, PROJECT CITE OFFICE AT: #5, GROUND FLOOR, PRESTAGE KHODE TOWER, RABHAVAN ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. C. V. ANGADI, ADV. FOR R3) SRI. ANANT P. MANDAGI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SANGRAM S. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R4) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30/07/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.102032/2025 BY ALLOWING THE TOP NOTED APPEAL TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12069-DB WA No. 100472 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) The present appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.102032 of 2025 by the petitioner in the writ proceedings. The writ petition was filed calling in question the correctness of the order dated nil bearing No.DC/PTL/CR-40/2023-24 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi. In terms of the said order, the Deputy Commissioner had addressed a communication to the Divisional Retail Sales Head, M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Khanapur Road, Tilakwadi, Belagavi and the operative portion of communication/order reads as follows: “ªÉÄïÁÌt¹zÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, G¯ÉèÃR (1) gÀ ªÀiÁ£Àå PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀzÀAvÉ ªÀÄ|| Væãï PÉÆà PÉJ01 LDgï E¦ ¥ÉæöÊ.°. PÀA¥À¤ ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ ¨É¼ÀUÁ« ¸ÀªÀzÀwÛ vÁ®ÆPÀÄ PÁ®ðPÀnÖ ZÀPÀæUÉÃj UÁæªÀÄUÀ¼À d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À°è ¥ÀA¥ï ¸ÉÆÖÃgÉÃeï AiÉÆÃd£É¬ÄAzÀ 1600 ªÉÄ.ªÁå.«zÀÄåvï GvÁࢸÀ®Ä C£ÀĪÀÄw zÉÆgÉwÛgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ªÉÄîÌAqÀ AiÉÆÃd£ÉUÉ CUÀvÀå«gÀĪÀ SÁ¸ÀV MqÉvÀ£ÀzÀ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À°è j.¸À.£ÀA.146/2PÀ ºÁUÀÆ 146/2qÀ PÉëÃvÀæ: 00-30 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À°è ºÁ° ªÀÄÄeÁªÀgï ¥ÉmÉÆæðAiÀĪÀÄì ¥ÉmÉÆæÃ¯ï ¥ÀA¥ï EzÀÄÝ, CzÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄ ¥ÀªÀgï ºË¸ï §gÀĪÀ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è EzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÉmÉÆæÃ¯ï ¥ÀA¦£À ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÁzÀ ²æà ªÀÄÄeÁªÀgï ºÀĸÉãÀ¸Á§ ºÀ¸À£À¸Á§ EªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä MqÉvÀ£ÀzÀ d«ÄãÀªÀ£ÀÄß, ªÀÄ|| Væãï PÉÆà PÉJ01 LDgï E¦ ¥ÉæöÊ.° EªÀjUÉ RjâUÉ PÉÆqÀ®Ä M¥ÀàPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀjUÉ ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÉmÉÆæÃ¯ï ¥ÀA¥À£ÀÄß ¸ÀܼÁAvÀj¸À®Ä vÀUÀ®ÄªÀ ªÉZÀѪÀ£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀA¨sÀ«¸ÀĪÀ ºÁ¤AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄ|| Væãï PÉÆ PÉJA01 LDgï E¦ ¥ÉæöÊ.° EªÀgÉ ¨sÀj¸ÀĪÀÅzÁV M¦àPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.” - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12069-DB WA No. 100472 of 2025 “G¯ÉèÃR(4) ¢£ÁAPÀ: 21.02.2025 gÀ F PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄzÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÉmÉÆæÃ¯ï ¥ÀA¥ï£ÀÄß ¸ÀܼÁAvÀj¸À®Ä vÀªÀÄUÉ ¤zÉÃð²¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀgÉ, E°èAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÉmÉÆæÃ¯ï ¥ÀA¥ï£ÀÄß ¸ÀܼÁAvÀj¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. DzÀÝjAzÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ªÀĺÀvÀéPÁAQë AiÉÆÃd£É C£ÀĸÁ×£ÀPÉÌ «¼ÀA§ªÁUÀÄwÛzÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ, ªÀÄÄeÁªÀgï ¥ÉmÉÆæÃ¯ï ¥ÀA¥ïUÉ vÀPÀët¢AzÀ EAzsÀ£À ¥ÀÆgÉʸÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß ¤°è¹, ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÉmÉÆæÃ¯ï ¥ÀA¥ï£ÀÄß F DzÉñÀ ªÀÄÄnÖzÀ 03 ¢ªÀ¸ÀUÀ¼À°è ¸ÀÜVvÀUÉƽ¹ ¸ÀܼÁAvÀj¹zÀ §UÉÎ F PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄPÉÌ ªÀgÀ¢ ¸À°è¸À®Ä ¸ÀÆa¹zÉ.” 2. In terms of the said order, it was noticed that there was a delay in shifting of the petrol bunk while referring to the letter of the Office of the Deputy Commissioner dated 09.08.2024 and 29.11.2024. It was observed that due to delay in shifting the petrol bunk, the project of the Government was being delayed, accordingly, it was directed that the supply of fuel ought to be stopped immediately and necessary report be submitted to the Office of the Deputy Commissioner. Validity of such order was called in question before the learned Single Judge. The learned single judge after detailed consideration had rejected the writ petition. The said order is called in question. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ appellant would submit that the Deputy Commissioner has no such power to have passed the order at Annexure-A and that insofar as the reference to project in the order, the promoter of the said project and the petitioner were before the Civil Court - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12069-DB WA No. 100472 of 2025 insofar as agreement to sell and was a matter pending before the Civil Court. It was submitted that the order of the Deputy Commissioner was passed which has effect of undermining the rights pending adjudication before the Civil Court in the pending proceedings. It was further submitted that the Deputy Commissioner has no power under any statute so as to issue the direction as at Annexure-A. 4. Learned AGA would submit that Annexure-A is in the nature of an internal communication that the Deputy Commissioner was merely taking note of the earlier request of the petitioner dated 22.06.2023 for shifting of the petrol bunk and accordingly in light of such facts, the direction was passed. To the specific query relating to the power to issue such direction, it was submitted that the Deputy Commissioner has power to issue an NOC in terms of the applicable statute at the time of commencement of a petrol bunk and insofar as the source of power for Annexure-A, it is only submitted that the Deputy Commissioner has merely taken note of the request of the petitioner and issued such directions. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12069-DB WA No. 100472 of 2025 5. Sri Anant P.Mandagi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 has raised various contentions including that the petitioner was trying to make unlawful gain by arm-twisting the respondent No.4. It is submitted that the delay in shifting of petrol bunk would adversely prejudice implementation of the project of the Government in which the respondent No.4 has a stake. It is further submitted that the abuse of process resorted to by the petitioner was taken note of by the learned Single Judge while passing the order and appropriate order passed. 6. Perused Annexure-A as well as the order of the learned Single Judge. It must be noticed that the aspect of source of power for the Deputy Commissioner to pass the direction as at Annexure-A, has not been addressed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has specifically asserted that a suit is pending between the petitioner and the respondent No.4 in O.S.Nos.100 and 104 of 2025 in which the agreement to sell entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.4 is a subject matter of adjudication and such suit is still pending consideration. It is to be noticed that the learned Single Judge - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12069-DB WA No. 100472 of 2025 while noticing the pendency of the suits has made certain observations and the reasoning of the learned Single Judge is found at para 10 to 14. The said observations are extracted below. “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 ₹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 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12069-DB WA No. 100472 of 2025 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 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.” 7. It must be noticed that the learned Single Judge has not referred to the source of power of the Deputy Commissioner to pass the order. Observations made by the learned Single Judge regarding the validity of the agreement of sale may have - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12069-DB WA No. 100472 of 2025 the effect of prejudicing the rights of the parties before the Civil Court. 8. Noticing that the order of the Deputy Commissioner cannot be upheld and source of power cannot be traced to a statutory provision insofar as direction issued to stop supply of petrol and also taking note of the communication of ONGC dated 06.11.2024, the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The order at Annexure-A is set aside. 9. All contentions of both parties are kept open. Needless to state that the order passed or observations made are not to be construed as findings recorded on the basis of contentions of the parties. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed off. Sd/- (S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE CLK /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25