[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
M/S Bangari Filling Station vs The Director General Of Police on 9 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5343
WP No. 101168 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO. 101168 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
M/S. BANGARI FILLING STATION
SY. NO.52 B/1B4, PLOT NO.3 4 5 6 7
BELAGAVI ROAD, DODDAYANAKOPPA
OPP. TO NEW BUS STAND, DHARWAD
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SHRI BHARAMAPPA S/O. SHIVANAPPA BHANGARI,
AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. TADASINAKOPPA, YERIKOPPA-580114,
TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HARISH S.MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
VIJAYALAKSHMI
M KANKUPPI
1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
BENGALURU POLICE HEADQUARTERS,
Digitally signed by AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU-560001.
VIJAYALAKSHMI
M KANKUPPI
Date: 2026.04.10 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
17:56:27 +0530 DHARWAD-580001, TQ/DIST. DHARWAD.
3. THE COMMISSIONER,
HUBLI-DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
DHARWAD, TQ/DIST. DHARWAD-580020.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
(LAW AND ORDER), HUBLI-DHARWAD CITY
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5343
WP No. 101168 of 2026
HC-KAR
DHARWAD, TQ / DIST. DHARWAD-580025.
5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
DHARWAD SUB-DIVISION, HUBBALLI-580025,
TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD.
6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
DHARWAD-580001, TQ/DIST. DHARWAD.
7. THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
DHARWAD SUB-URBAN POLICE STATION,
DHARWAD, TQ/DIST. DHARWAD-580008.
8. THE CHIEF DIVISIONAL RETAILS SALES MANAGER,
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,
KHANAPUR ROAD, TILAKWADI,
BELAGAVI-590006.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T. HANAMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADV. FOR R1, R2 AND
R4 TO R7;
SRI. G.I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI. C.V. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R8)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING
THE IMPUGNED NOTICE BEARING NO.¸ÀASÉå:r¹¦(PÁªÀÄvÀÄÛ¸ÀÄ)/ºÀÄ-
zsÁ/28/2026 DATED 04.02.2026 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.4 AS PER ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.,.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN
AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5343
WP No. 101168 of 2026
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
1. The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking the
following reliefs:
i. Writ of Certiorari or any other order or direction, quashing the
impugned notice bearing No. ¸ÀASÉå:r¹¦(PÁªÀÄvÀÄÛ¸ÀÄ)/ºÀÄ-
zsÁ/28/2026 dated 04.02.2026 issued by the respondent No.4
as per Annexure-G.
ii. Issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction which
deems fit to grant by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are
as follows:
3. The proprietor of the petitioner purchased the land in
question under the registered sale deeds dated 09.06.2011 and
09.09.2011. Respondent No.2 issued NOC for establishing filling
station. The proprietor of the petitioner and respondent No.8
entered into Retail Outlet Dealership Agreement for
establishment of filing station. The proprietor of the petitioner
offered the aforesaid land for establishment of filing station and
entered into lease deed with respondent No.8 on 10.11.2011 for
a period of 30 years. Respondent No.4 issued a notice dated
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5343
HC-KAR
04.02.2026 calling upon the petitioner to appear before the Joint
Inquiry on 11.02.2026 at about 11:00 am along with documents
and information of the land on which the petitioner filling station
is established. The petitioner, aggrieved by the impugned notice
issued by respondent No.4, filed this writ petition.
4. The respondents-State filed statement of objections
contending one among several grounds that the petition is not
maintainable in the eye of law or facts. Hence, prays to dismiss
the petition.
5. Respondent No.8 also filed statement of objections
raising several grounds.
6. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the statement of
objections and prayed to allow the writ petition.
7. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for
the respondents.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
respondent No.4 is not the competent authority to initiate a joint
inquiry into the alleged encroachment of land belonging to the
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5343
HC-KAR
police department, Hubli-Dharwad, by the petitioner filling
station while its establishment and consequential issuance of
impugned notice calling upon the petitioner to appear before
Joint Inquiry is arbitrary, erroneous and without jurisdiction.
Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.
9. Per contra, learned AGA submits that the impugned
notice is only an appearance of notice. The petitioner can
produce the records to establish the ownership over the property
in question. The petitioner instead of approaching respondent
No.4 has filed this writ petition. He submits that respondent
No.4 has not passed any adverse orders against the petitioner.
Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not
maintainable. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the
writ petition.
10. Perused the records and considered the submissions
of the learned counsel for the parties.
11. The proprietor of the petitioner claims to have
purchased the property in question under the registered sale
deeds and established the filling station. Respondent No.4
issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to appear before the
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5343
HC-KAR
Joint Inquiry on 11.02.2026 at about 11:00 am with all the
documents and information of the land on which the petitioner
filling station is established.
12. From the perusal of the impugned notice, the said
notice is only a notice calling upon the petitioner to appear
before respondent No.4 along with the documents, as
respondent No.4 wants to verify the documents of the land in
question. Mere calling upon the petitioner to appear before the
Joint Inquiry is not a ground to entertain the writ petition. The
petitioner, without appearing before respondent No.4, has
approached this Court. The writ petition filed by the petitioner is
premature. In view of the proposition of law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner Central Excise,
Haldia v. M/s Krishna Wax (P) Ltd1, the writ petition is not
maintainable against a show cause notice.
13. Considering the mandate laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of M/s Krishna Wax (P) Ltd referred
(supra), the writ petition is not maintainable.
(2020) 12 Supreme Court Cases 572
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5343
HC-KAR
14. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is disposed off.
(ii) A liberty is reserved to the petitioner to appear
before respondent No.4 and submit the
documents/records within a period of three days
from today. Thereafter, respondent No.4 is directed
to consider the documents to be produced by the
petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance
with law within a period of one week from the date
of receipt of documents to be submitted by the
petitioner. In the meanwhile, respondent No.4 is
directed not to take any coercive action against the
petitioner till passing of the order.
All the contentions of the parties are kept open.
Pending I.As. stand disposed off.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
kmv
CT: UMD
