IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 19"" DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009
PRESENT Q L
THE HON'BLE MR. P.D, DINAKARAN, :j:U'S--TI«CE'AA#' "
AND V' '
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE V.G'IvS.:fi;.'B'§~iAHIf
WRIT APPEAL NO.32Aé;;gO0I§ G_r¥?I§-RES--.I_
BETWEEN:
INDIAN OIL CORPORATICN.C.TLTD.::;. :
REP BY ITS CHIEF DI'JI'SIC')fNAE_" _; I
RETAIL SALES MANAGER. " f %
BY SRI R.,_KVULAKAf?.:;NI' R. "
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI°R. CIO PA'L§\}R'F{I§F#-~!N:)5<I,. ADv., )
AND...' "
SRI-y,T.'I~I.ARENDRA BABU
"S,/_O.,THAM N-AIAH
. EIIITAGSEO:v»--.ABSO'UT 55 YEARS
No.3, YELEMANE 3." MAIN
15'? .ST*Ac3E, 157 CROSS
WEST OF CHORD ROAD
* RAIAIINAGAR
BANGALORE-IO
.4 -
2} UNION OF INDIA
REP., BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PETROLEUM
AND NATURAL GAS
SHASHI BHAVAN,
NEW DELHI
(BY SR1 G.A.SRIE<Al\iTE GOWDA, ADV., FOR R-1)
...RESPoi\ipENTSj"{Tj~--.f_
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED Us/~S._44
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING,Tois'ET'~.AsIpE_"
THE ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETI:TI..oN N-o,21o:ix6/2o.();I-~-V.
DATED 28.7.2009.
THIS vvRIT APPEAL coMIAi'G._vo'.i\ji§%oR~.2PREI.I.MINARv
HEARING THIS DA?r',""~§§ABIiAH1'7": §EL..wTERED THE
FOLLOWING: --
This _.Wriat 'IiA1Pp'eai" is filed by M/s. Indian on
:'V:._Corpor'é§t.ioEi'I:' §vl..'t0fl'lited """ We respondent No.5 in W.P.
vxifii-ta~erein the learned single Judge of this
9′ Vi”Court”-has,.’_”al.EdiAied the writ petition and quashed the
‘orders and directed the appellant to process the
4’_ap’p.lViVtat–ion fiEed by the writ petitioner or his nominees for
Eisstie: of dealerships co–tez’mini,Is with the lease of Fahd on
l””WVhich the retail outiets are established and on similar
5 I 2?
l\”§i’-5′-..,”§
-3-
terms and conditions as in the case of other land owners,
immediately prior to February 2003, and has granted~.rfo.p’r-Vs’
months time from the date of receipt of
compliance of the direction issued __b.y._the si’n§_i:ie
Eudge.
2. Respondent W.P.
No.1016/2007 under .227 of the
Constitution of indie rseeigiygi to the
respondents ti:ieij.’;il§pl:ication filed by the
petitioner_,/._no’rnifneles:’_ dealership and to
appoint .L4″i”3fi)’:l”l’–‘slr’iE3″l’3S as dealers dnder
respondents’a2 to foirkqéuashing the impugned letter
_.dated.iQ6u.U9.2OOV6″ by the second respondent herein
has __’G’ to the writ petition and letter dated
by the second respondent in the writ
–petitio”n as.éperfAnnexdre ‘l-l’ to the writ petition in so far
it *relate’s to petitioner and for issue of writ or order that
-iinay lbedeemed fit in the circumstances of the case,
_5,
department of explosive etc. The petitioner has obtained
the aforesaid permission from the local authorities..,b4\,i_i’~-_
incurring substantial expenditure and by spending’4,ti’r§;i-..,l
valuable time, energy and efforts. __,T.h,e4 other”corn’dit’i’on’_s.V
that were required to be satisfied byl’/athe_’_’petitioner_:for:’Vt:he_°T_A
commencement of operation Vt»)’l.°’L”;-ggtail idptletspp
under various statutes like, theVAP.ai_r’tn.err’t_,of The
Workmen Compensationifiict-,. Disputes Act,
the Minimum Insurance
Act, The Funds and
Miscellaneo.us”..Act:;–1;,,_Theit Bonus Act, The
Factories and Establishment Act were
compliedV”‘iw.ith,.if’l§eta:i”i’rif44outlets were installed under
andV.”‘s–up_e_ryision of the petitioner. The IBP
operating outlets on its own appointing
petitioner as COCO operators with an
ass.urance.’that the petitioner/ nominees would be made
deai_ersV’within a short time on land owners category.
3.2 It is further averred that at the
commencement of the business, each of the petitioner
\,,,j}s
_gc
enhanced the commission by paying such contractors 90%
of the commission that is actually paid to the dealer.
by whatever name it is called, whether it is dealer4g:oi5fa~:A
contractor, the variation being margina.i.,._the _-:’)e’t’it’io’ner”‘dyi’_d.V
not make it an issue to legally enforceiigthei
the contractors are required t’oV._V:vpt.irchaseV:_’
products by paying amount in aVd\.ta:ngce”‘agnd..the–r1_tagic§e the
petroleum products just Vlillkefihother’;’ri.ag’uVll.ar::cigaier, who is
doing the busivnées-s__’ Company.
Respondents the petitioner
that they- ::’co_:ntiili.ue:::V’At’he:l_a.ppointments of the
nominees ofhthe operators till they
made the petitioiier/_ regular dealers and the
pv¢.ti.tioner..«.ig’on_a fideV.”‘bei:iey’e:-cl that IBP Company would
gra’n_Vt»Aifegular»:A_V4dea.iA*§§r5__hip to the petitioner / nominee in
per Annexure ‘A’ . However,
glarelgspyondentsgg 2 have issued endorsements as per
and ‘I-i’ dated 06.09.2006 and
wherein representation of the petitioner /
. ‘ =.._nomVinees for appointment as dealer as per the scheme on
lithe basis of which, petitioner had made the land avaiiabie,
xii»
-13
be given to the petitioner or his nominee and
implementation of new poiicy has been upheid by the
Court of New Delhi in LPA Nos.158/2007, 159/2oo7_:i_ei’ric:i*5{§ff
WP (Civil) No.18261/2006 and other Connected.*nid*tters’§’=: ‘-
He has aiso reiied upon the decision,
Pradesh High Court in W.A. No.soi:;<.2.oo7"'.*-..}i.cr;oraVi'hg; :2
the tearned counsel for the V__petition_e_ir';:-sp-egiaiiieatxefi fiieid
against the said order has Hon' ble
Supreme Court on further
submitted that the justified in
hoiding by the first
responder2t*.,_to–_ -he wouid be offered
dealershifin the {and for lease for a
paltry stsiijfitiv and promise has been broken and
su_spAe:ns.ion _Viof.%thA.e'~-,poiicy was not intimated to the writ
petition'er,'\A}hen»._ttie"Viease was executed and wherefore,
the petitioner-riiis'entitied to be appointed as a deaier under
'th:ee».sChenjeVVof 2002 and the Eearned singie Judge ought to
i1.a's¢e"-disnfiissed the writ petitioni
\\;.}s
,15M
been disputed. Annexure 'A' is the subject poiicy, which
cieariy provided that where the owners of the landi'0f:fere.d
their iand on tong iease, the Company
outiet and give them deaiershipw..__Thej'iiactiljjthlat,'_'_the,_
petitioner parted with the land on:"iieas_ei*~t3y
in favour of respondents on bas'i'-:~fiof_tlh.e 'EiSSvLi.f3:flC€ '~ '
given in the scheme as perV,,..,An'riiex'u_,re .;'A"–,._to,,,.the writ
petition dated .wa.5_Vcieariy stated
that the owneréof the as deaier
for the ouitieitll is also not
disputed, H
'e.on_tended by the appeiiant
herein isflthat'the':sa'i'd,,,:po'i4icy:_.€iated 08.10.2002 was kept in
abeyance from" Fel5'ruai<y and thereafter, new policy
___has ,.:i?,g§n'i evollnve-d.___o_n,. 27.12.2004 and allotment of
"'._Vd»ea'iershi.p'«wa.s"'su_spended on the basis of the scheme of
the,xyeiarx'200:2.'A',:=.V'i;he fact that the said suspension of the
'yscherheyy daytedv 08.10.2002, wherein owners of the iands
"..:w<§u'id._beappointed as dealers on their parting with their
on iong term lease with the Corporation, which was a
of the policy has not been intimated to the writ
petitioner is also not disputed. There is no materiai