(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
W.P.No.102032 of 2025 by the petitioner in the writ proceedings.
the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi. In terms of the said order,
Divisional Retail Sales Head, M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
"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."
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12069-DB
HC-KAR
"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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12069-DB
HC-KAR
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.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12069-DB
HC-KAR
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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12069-DB
HC-KAR
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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12069-DB
HC-KAR
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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12069-DB
HC-KAR
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
