Karnataka High Court

Sri Muniyappa H vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd on 3 June, 2025

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                       PRESENT

       THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

                          AND

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

        WRIT APPEAL NO. 608 OF 2021 (GM-RES)


BETWEEN:

SRI. MUNIYAPPA H.
S/O HANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
NITRAHALLI
MADHUGIRI TALUK
TUMAKURU-562 132
                                          ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ABHINAV RAMANAND A., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.
    HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
    INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, G-9
    ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG
    BANDRA (EAST)
    MUMBAI-400 051
    REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

2 . INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED
    HAVING ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT
    MYSURU DIVISIONAL OFFICE
    No.36/A, 1ST FLOOR, B.N. ROAD
    MYSURU TRADE CENTRE
    OPPOSITE KSRTC BUS STAND
    MYSURU-570 001
    REPRESENTED BY
 -

                             2




    ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICER
                                          ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. VACHAN H.V., ADVOCATE FOR
    SMT. H. PAVITHRA AND
    SMT. KAVITHA DAMODARAN, ADVOCATES FOR R1 & R2)

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO (a) CALL FOR RECORDS IN
W.P.No.10971/2020 (GM-RES) AND (b) SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 25.03.2021 PASSED IN W.P.No.10971/2020 (GM-RES)
AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR.

      THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 05.03.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM:    HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
          and
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K


                    CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

The Writ Appeal is filed by the petitioner/appellant

challenging the Order dated 25.03.2021 passed by the

learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.10971/2020 (GM-

RES).

2. We have heard Shri. Abhinav Ramanand, learned

counsel appearing for the appellant, Shri. Vachan H.V.,

learned counsel appearing for Smt. H. Pavithra and Smt.

Kavitha Damodaran, learned advocates appearing for

respondents No.1 and 2.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing

for the appellant that the appellant is a resident of Nitrahalli,

Madhugiri Taluk, Tumkur District, applied for a Retail Outlet

dealership advertised by the respondents - a Petroleum

Refining and Sales Company, particularly of Motor Spirit

(Petrol) and High-Speed Diesel Oil (HSD), on 25.11.2018.

The dealership was to be located on NH-234 between 9 km

to 12 km from Madhugiri towards Sira.

4. The appellant submitted his application under

Group-1, offering 10 guntas of land in Sy.No.42/3,

Madhugiri Taluk, through a Lease Deed dated 22.12.2018

for a period of 22 years titled 'Jameenina Bhogya Patra

(Lease Deed),' at Annexure 'D'. The respondents informed

the appellant that he had qualified for the draw of lots. The

appellant participated in the draw of lots conducted on

21.01.2020 and was declared the successful candidate.

Subsequently, he was required to submit necessary

documents and pay an initial security deposit of Rs.30,000/-

which he duly complied with. The next step involved a Field

Verification of Credentials (FVC) by respondent No.2, but

this was never completed.

5. It is submitted that despite fulfilling all

requirements, respondent No.2 on 11.06.2020, issued a

communication stating that the land documents provided by

the appellant were not valid for consideration under Group-

1. The respondents classified the Lease Deed as a Mortgage

Deed, rendering the appellant ineligible under clause 4(v) of

the brochure for Dealership Selection Guidelines. As a result,

his application was moved to Group-3, where applicants had

not offered land. The appellant submits that this action is

arbitrary and illegal, as the respondents had misinterpreted

his Lease Deed as a Mortgage Deed, leading to his

disqualification despite his compliance with the required

conditions.

6. It is also submitted that aggrieved by this

decision, the appellant challenged the communication dated

11.06.2020 before this Court in W.P.No.10971/2020 (GM-

RES). However, by Order dated 25.03.2021, the learned

Single Judge upheld the interpretation of the respondents

holding that the document produced by the appellant was

indeed a Mortgage Deed and not a Lease Deed, and thus did

not meet the eligibility criteria for Group-1.

7. According to the advertisement issued by the

respondents, the three groups to offer land for the

applicants are set-out as under:-

(i) Group 1: Applicants having suitable piece of land in the advertised location/area either by way of ownership/long term lease for a period of minimum 19 years 11 months or as advertised by the OMC (Oil Marketing Companies);

(ii) Group 2: Applicants having Firm Offer for a suitable piece of land for purchase or long-term lease for a period of minimum 19 years 11 months or as advertised by the OMC;

(iii) Group 3: Applicants who have not offered land in the application.

8. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing

for the appellant that the communication dated 11.06.2020

was issued without affording the appellant an opportunity to

be heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

Further, the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that

the communication dated 11.06.2020 is contrary to the

conditions stipulated in the Dealership Selection Brochure.

Clause 4(v)(d) of the brochure explicitly permits applicants

to hold land through a registered Lease Deed for a minimum

period of 19 years and 11 months or through "any other

type of ownership/Transfer Deed document". However, the

respondents erroneously classified the "Jameenina Bhogya

Patra" document as a Mortgage Deed, and the learned

Single Judge, incorrectly upheld the erroneous classification

made by respondent No.2.

9. It is further contended that the Deed dated

22.12.2018, upon a bare perusal, is clearly a Lease Deed

and not a Mortgage Deed as wrongly concluded by the

learned Single Judge. Even assuming, without conceding

that the document is a Mortgage Deed, it would still satisfy

the conditions of Clause 4(v)(d) of the brochure, which

recognizes "any other type of ownership/Transfer Deed

Document." It is also contended that a mortgage

constitutes a transfer of rights in immovable property and

thus falls within the scope of a "Transfer Deed."

Consequently, rejection of the appellant's candidature under

Group-1 on the ground that the document is a Mortgage

Deed is arbitrary and contrary in terms of the brochure.

10. It is further contended that if the respondents

found the document unsuitable for Group-1, they were duty-

bound under Clause 4(v) of the brochure to provide the

appellant an opportunity to produce an alternative suitable

land. However, no such opportunity was granted. Instead,

the respondents arbitrarily issued the communication dated

11.06.2020, rejecting the appellant's application without

adhering to the prescribed procedure.

11. It is contended that the respondents' arbitrary

and discriminatory conduct is further evidenced by their

acceptance of a similar document styled as "Jameenina

Babtu Bhogya Patra," submitted by one Sri Harish N., to

whom they awarded the Retail Outlet Dealership. The

similarity between the two documents demonstrates that the

respondents have acted inconsistently, thereby, violating the

appellant's fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21

of the Constitution of India.

12. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing

for the respondents that the appellant's application was

initially considered based on the documents and information

furnished by him and he was requested to submit further

documentation concerning the proposed land for detailed

verification. Upon scrutiny of the documents, it was

discovered that the appellant had submitted a Mortgage

Deed, which, as per clause 4(v) of the Dealership Brochure,

rendered the land ineligible under Group-1. The land was

not owned by the appellant under the said Clause.

Consequently, the respondents reclassified the appellant's

candidature to Group-3 and formally communicated the

rejection of his application under Group-1 through a letter

dated 11.06.2020.

13. It is contended that the decision of the

respondents was neither arbitrary nor capricious and was in

strict compliance with the eligibility criteria set forth in the

dealership brochure. The learned Single Judge after due

consideration of the facts and legal position, dismissed the

Writ Petition filed by the appellant. Hence, the present

appeal.

14. In support of the contentions advanced, the

learned counsel appearing for the respondents has placed

reliance on Vinod N v. M/s. Indian Oil Corporation

Limited by order dated 20.07.2021 passed in

W.A.No.216/2020 (Gm-Res).

15. We have considered the contentions advanced.

For a proper consideration of the question raised, the

following provisions of the brochure would be relevant.

Clauses No.4 and 5 reads as follows:-

"4. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR INDIVIDUAL APPLICANTS - PROPRIETORSHIP / PARTNERSHIP

Common Eligibility Criteria for all Categories applying as Individual (as on date of application unless mentioned otherwise)

xxxxx

(v) Land (Applicable to all categories):

The applicants would be classified into three groups as mentioned below based on the land

-

offered or land not offered by them in the application form:-

Group 1: Applicants having suitable piece of land in the advertised location/area either by way of ownership / long term lease for a period of minimum 19 years 11 months or as advertised by the OMC.

Group 2: Applicants having Firm Offer for a suitable piece of land for purchase or long term lease for a period of minimum 19 years 11 months or as advertised by the OMC.

Group 3: Applicants who have not offered land in the application.

Applications under Group 3 would be processed/advised to offer land only in case no eligible applicant is found or no applicant get selected under Group 1 & 2.

In case land offered by all the applicants under Group 1 & Group 2 is found not suitable/not meeting requirements, then these applicant/s under Group 1 & Group 2 along with applicants under Group 3 (who did not offer land along with application) would be advised by the OMCs to provide suitable land in the advertised location / stretch, within a period of 3 months from the date of issuance of intimation letter to them through SMS/e-mail. In case the applicant fails to provide suitable land within the prescribed period or the land provided is found not meeting the laid down criteria, the application would be rejected.

The other conditions with respect to offering of land are as under:-

a) The land should be available with the applicant as on the date of application and should have minimum lease of 19 years and 11 months (as advertised by respective oil company) from the date or after the date of

-

advertisement but not later than the date of application.

b) If the offered land is on Long term lease, then the Lease agreement should have a provision to sub-lease the land wherever the locations are advertised under Corpus Fund Scheme (CFS), Other Corporation Owned Sites ("A"/ "CC" sites).

In case it is observed that the lease agreement for the land offered by the selected applicant does not have a provision to sub-lease the land, in such cases the selected applicant would be provided 21 days' time from the date of intimation through SMS/e-mail to make suitable amendment / addendum to the lease agreement and submit the same to the concerned OMC.

c) For Dealer owned sites ("B"/"DC" sites), the applicant should ensure that the land arranged by the applicant is either registered in the applicant's name or leased in favour of the applicant for a minimum period of 19 years and 11 months (as advertised by respective oil company), before issuance of LOA as per the conditions of LOI.

d) The applicant(s) under Group-1 should have documents to establish ownership of land offered for the Dealership as on date of application, such as:-

• Khasra / Khatauni or any equivalent revenue document or certificate from revenue official confirming status of the ownership of the land • Registered Sale deed/Registered Gift deed. • Registered Lease deed for a minimum period of 19 years and 11 months (as advertised by respective oil company) .

-

• Any other type of ownership / transfer deed document • Lease agreement or firm allotment letter issued by Government / Semi Government bodies

e) The land owned by the family member(s) will also be considered as belonging to the applicant (Group-1) subject to producing the consent letter in the form of affidavit (Appendix III A) from the concerned family member(s).

xxxxx

l) It should be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that as on date of application:-

i. Offered land is of required dimension and abutting the Road boundary, after leaving Right of Way (ROW) line of the road.

ii. The offered land is also not notified for acquisition.

iii. Land owner is in Possession of the land from the beginning / edge of ROW line.

iv. There is no other land including Govt. land between ROW and offered plot.

Note : In case it is found at later stage that the offered plot is not meeting any of the above conditions then in such case the offered land would be rejected and candidate will be given opportunity along with applicants under Group 3 by intimation through SMS/e-mail.

m) Verification of the supporting documents submitted by the selected candidate, post selection, will be carried out at the time of

-

Scrutiny / Field Verification of Credentials (FVC).

Note 1:

a. "Own' means having ownership by way of Registered Sale deed, Registered Gift deed, etc. or title of the property or registered long lease (as per individual OMC norms) in the name of applicant / family member/s as defined in 4 (v)-e above.

b. If an applicant offers more than one land then, a confirmation in writing will be obtained by Land Evaluation Committee (LEC) from the applicant with regard to the plot of land to be considered for evaluation.

c. The same piece of land cannot be offered by more than one applicant for a particular RO location against an advertisement. In case more than one application is received offering the same piece of land all such applications would be rejected and allotment, if made, would be liable for cancellation.

d. The selected candidate has to make available the offered land duly developed up to the road level by cutting/filling (as applicable), with good earth/ murrum, layer-wise compacted as per standard engineering practices to the satisfaction of the concerned OMC. The selected candidate is also required to provide retaining wall and compound wall of min. height 1.5 meters, designed as per site conditions as per approval of OMC.

e. There is no commitment by the Oil Company for taking the offered land from the applicant. If an applicant, after selection, is unable to provide the land indicated in the application within a period

of 2 months (for Group 1) and 4 months (for Group 2) from the date of Letter of Intent (LOI), Oil Company will have the right to cancel / withdraw the LOI issued in favour of the selected candidate for allotment of dealership.

Note 2:

In case of locations where the applicant has not offered the land in the application (Group 3) or if the offered land of all applicants under Group 1 & Group 2 got rejected due to not meeting the laid down criteria, then all such applicants shall be given an opportunity to offer land or alternate land (as the case may be) in the advertised location/stretch provided the applicant meet all other eligibility criteria.

A communication through SMS/e-mail would be sent to these applicants to offer land/alternate land within a period of 3 months from the date of offer letter.

On receipt of advice to offer land from OMCs the applicant should submit land offer online and indicate the category under which the land falls (Group 1 or Group 2) on the basis of the confirmatory letter from an advocate (Appendix III B). Upon selection, the selected candidate would be required to submit all the relevant documents pertaining to the land offered along with consent letter in the form of affidavit (Appendix III A) and/or Power of Attorney (Registered), if applicable, along with confirmatory letter from an advocate (Appendix III B).

The applicants would be classified into two groups i.e. Group 1 & Group 2 based on the land offered by them.

In case the applicant(s) fail to offer alternate land within the specified period, the offer would be withdrawn and application rejected under intimation to the applicant(s) through SMS/e-mail.

Only one opportunity would be given to the applicant, either for offering land (if applicant has not offered any

-

land along with application form) or for offering alternate land (if the land offered by the applicant is found to be not meeting the laid down criteria during Scrutiny/land evaluation/ rejection of land after selection, for applicants who have offered land along with the application).

(Emphasis Supplied)

16. It is a specific case of the appellant that identical

documents have been taken into consideration and

dealerships have been awarded to similarly situated

applicants. Further, it is contended that a chance is

provided for providing proper documentation in case there is

any defect in the documentation as provided by the

applicant. We notice that Note 2 under clause 4 of the

brochure specifically provides for one opportunity to the

applicant for offering alternate land if the land offered by the

applicant is not meeting the laid down criteria during

scrutiny/ land evaluation/ rejection of land after selection,

for applicants who have offered land along with the

application.

17. In the instant case, the applicant had offered land

which was found not suitable, but no opportunity was

granted to him to provide alternate land. Moreover, the

respondents are unable to rebut the contention of the

appellant that mortgage/lease deeds of the same nature as

the one produced by the appellant have been accepted by

the respondents and dealership granted accepting the same.

18. In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion

that the rejection of the appellant's application and the

relegation of his application to Group-3 without giving him

an opportunity to rectify the defects, if any, was completely

impermissible and against the provisions of the brochure.

19. In the above view of the matter, we are of the

opinion that the dismissal of the Writ Petition without

considering the contentions raised by the writ petitioner was

erroneous. In the result:-

(i) The Writ Appeal is allowed.

(ii) There will be a direction to the respondents to grant an opportunity to the appellant to produce documentation to show that he was eligible for participation in the selection process as a Group-1 applicant.

(iii) If such documentation is produced within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, the same shall be considered and appropriate action shall be taken and intimated to the appellant within four weeks thereafter.

Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, shall stand

disposed of.

Sd/-

(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

Sd/-

(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

cp*/PN