Karnataka High Court
Sri Prakash S/O Ramchandra Badnimuri vs M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd on 4 July, 2024
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE DAY 4TH DAY OF JULY 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.103588 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN
SRI. PRAKASH S/O. RAMCHANDRA BADNIMURI,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BHAGIRATH ONI, ARABHAVI-591310,
POST. ARABHAVIMATH, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ARUN L. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,
BELGAUM DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, KHANAPUR ROAD, TILAKAWADI,
BELAGAVI-590006, BY ITS HEAD OF DIVISONAL OFFICE.
2 . THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,
(RETAIL SALES), INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED,
INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, NO.29, KALINGRAO ROAD,
(MISSION ROAD) BANGALORE-560027.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C.V. ANGADI, ADV. FOR R1 & R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE CASE FROM THE
RESPONDENT NO.1; ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN
THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
LETTER DATED 03-05- 2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-J ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1;ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE
NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER
BEARING NO. SRMP23/ 702/ BELAGAVI DATED 5-05-2024 AS PER
ANNEXURE-L PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1;
ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT
OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO CONSIDER
THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER DATED 13-05-
2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-K AND TO AWARD OF RETAIL OUTLET
DEALERSHIP DISTRIBUTORSHIP OF INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD
FOR THE LOCATION AT SL. NO.702 ARABHAVI TO LOLSURA ON
STATE HIGHWAY, IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.
-2-
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 03.07.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has brought forth the present writ
petition to challenge the impugned letter dated
03.05.2024 issued by Respondent No.1. This letter
rejected the petitioner's application for the award of a
retail outlet (RO) dealership due to the petitioner's failure
to submit the corrected documents within the stipulated
time frame. The petitioner contends that the delay was not
intentional and seeks the court's intervention to quash the
impugned letter and compel Respondent No.1 to
reconsider his application.
2. The petitioner contends that he was
incapacitated due to fever from 01.03.2024 to
05.05.2024, during which time he nonetheless prepared all
necessary documents requested by Respondent No.1. The
petitioner argues that the respondent did not provide
specific details regarding the required corrections.
Assuming the issue was with his father's name, he secured
a schooling certificate and notarized Appendix III on
14.03.2024, reflecting the correct survey number.
Additionally, the petitioner applied to the village
accountant for a certificate confirming his ownership of
survey no. 386 measuring 3 acres and 36 guntas.
3. The petitioner asserts that his inability to
submit the corrected documents within the stipulated time
was due to his illness and not a deliberate act. He relies on
the judgment in Shivai vs. Indian Oil Corporation, arguing
that, as an OBC candidate, the principles laid out in that
case should apply to his situation. He requests the court to
quash the impugned letter and direct Respondent No.1 to
consider his representation submitted on 13.05.2024,
ultimately awarding him the RO dealership.
4. The respondents' counsel referred to the
brochure governing the selection of dealers for regular and
rural outlets. According to clause "E" of the brochure,
applicants are required to register their applications on the
web portal and upload all requisite documents. The
brochure emphasizes that applicants must carefully and
diligently fill in the details. The respondents argue that
they duly communicated the deficiencies in the petitioner's
documents and, despite being provisionally selected, the
petitioner did not submit the corrected documents within
the required 21 days.
5. After hearing the learned counsels and
perusing the records, it is evident that the petitioner did
not upload the proper documents, prompting the
respondents to request corrected documents on
08.03.2024. The guidelines, as stated in the brochure,
require a provisionally selected applicant to rectify and
submit the corrected documents within 21 days.
6. The impugned letter (Annexure J) also granted
the petitioner the liberty to seek redressal by submitting a
representation by 13.05.2024. However, the petitioner did
not submit any representation and instead filed this
petition on 10.06.2024.
7. The guidelines for awarding dealership clearly
state that any deficiencies must be rectified within 21
days. The petitioner admits to failing to upload the
corrected documents within the stipulated time and
attributes the delay to his illness.
8. Furthermore, the guidelines provide a selection
process in case of cancellation due to discrepancies. If a
provisional selection is canceled, the next highest bidder is
considered for selection. Given the petitioner's non-
compliance with the stipulated timelines and guidelines,
along with the fact that the next eligible candidate has
already been selected, the petition is deemed
unsustainable.
9. The judgment cited by the petitioner is not
applicable to the present case. In the cited case, the
petitioner failed to obtain a caste certificate, a materially
different circumstance. In contrast, the present petitioner
declared that he possessed the original documents and
acknowledged the consequences of not submitting the
documents on time.
10. The respondents' contentions are valid. The
procedural adherence required by the guidelines and the
subsequent selection of the next eligible candidate prevent
any indulgence from being granted to the petitioner.
Additionally, the petition suffers from non-joinder of
necessary parties.
11. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed on
both counts of non-compliance with the guidelines and
non-joinder of necessary parties.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MBS
CT:BCK
