'-IQ? :,.sR1 R,K. D§}SAE',"ADVOCATE}
IN mm mm: comm' or " %
cmctm' BENCH AT ' % L
DATED THIS 'mm 218'r;:A;:$§L;1Qf%'G:=?"Jnx,Y;_":_
THE Horrnm MR. wsTfi:§E a.i¢;" DA8 V'
w. P.'
-V 'QIWAX
w. P. No.6J_.5G0f2(1'-Q9
BETWEEN; '
SH'R1MANJU'i'JAT'H% - _ .
S/G' RAMA"{YA ~!LAGAR'v.. " _
AGE:38 YE'.ARS, OCC:E5{}_SINESS
R/O ARK;-AI.ULz, '1*AL'i.I1«;.a HANGAL
:§isTR1cT"HAvER1. * '
' " ~ PETITIONER
"1L 'é*1+:;=i.';:"§'R,:)Ixr1s101~zAL RETAIL
'SALES MANAGER
" INDEAN OIL CORPORATION LTD,
V __ " "INDIAN OIL BHAVAN"
MARKETING DIVISION
KARNATAKA §}'ATE OFFICE
KHANAPUIR' ROAD
TELAKWADI, BELGAUM.
2. SH RI BASAVARAJ
S] O SHIVANANDAPPA BELLAD
AGEE48 YEARS, OCCEBUSINESS
R] O AKKLALUR, TALUK HANG:%L
DISTRICT HAVERE.
3. SHRI KOTPUR BASAPPA
S] O CHANNABASAPPA BELLAD
AGEI42 YEARS, OCC-:}%3USiNESS
R/O AKKI-ALUR, TALUK I-IANGAL
DiSTRlCT HAVERI.
{BY SR} C.V.ANGADI, ADVOCATE i?oR;z1; L "
spa; F'.V.PA'i'IL, ADVOCATE FOR' Rf2:--. ' »_ , "
SR1 SADIQ N.GOODWAL:'a,ADVOC,ATE FORR3)
Tms PETITIORIS FILED. QNDER ART}CLES_.f226 AND 22?
OF THE CONSTiTUTIQ_N2.OFfiNDIA', -1?-RAv.zNG TO DIRECT R-1 TO
CONSIDER THE LA1~zD"c:;F9I~.:}:§ie:3:i Br-I%fi>:--;,2:.¢PET1T1oNEI2 BEING
PART 0;» vpc__N0E151,.,_ M'EAsUR3Nc§"'30'sq" METERS x 30 SQ
METERS OE' .NA---i..AN:33, S1f:fz1A§:*E.:;;~..A*a* !i;§iI{I--ALUR VILLAC}E OF
HANGAL fr2x_Lui:2és.,. }:)E'SFi2£C'F_4HASiEi5?l""}¥'OR APPOINTMENT OF'
OPE}RATOR '§:§"'VVUN_iD'ER"-.éif€.§iE-XURE-A mus/12/2007 AS PER
APPLiCATIC}N-- VOFj_L'PE'§'£TiON--ER ANNEXURE.-C BT24/1/{)8 AND
ETC. * =
;;;'tfi'.%?.Nc$.6»1.5:{)t5g$'o_g
" -.T-1<:éj5'1*éT:3R'E§1;sj:.~:V'.;1:=;vA
'; sxo CWSNNABASPPA BELLA}?
49 YRS, _(}£;C:AGRI... 83 msrmss
i§,'C)"AKKIALUR
TQ':H.§~NGAL., DiST:HAVER3. PETITSONER
V' , V SRE SADIQ N.GO€3DWALA, ADVOCATE}
: K.)
.-- " 'fI;Vp;SP:rqVD§:§4*i'S
INDLAN on, CORPORATION 1:r::>.,
(mamcmne DIVISION)
KHANAPUR ROAD n
TILAKWADI, BEL(3AUM~59O 096- _
REPTD. BY ms DIv1s3JoNgxL RETAIL' "
SALES MANAGER.
BASAVARAJ "
MAJOR, OCC:I3USINE--S$§ j.
R/0 AKKIALUR ' ' :
TQ:}1ATNGAL, 1;_:i'§1";1wz~;{3'.rgre.i'V;--_'_ "
(BY, SR1 F;x(';'1=A*3:__L, é.1§v§)§,":AT_f_§VFc>§3;v2 0/ R2
SRi"C..XZ._ANGjADI,'AQVOCATE FOR R1}
RESPONDENTS
_ _ T'H1s"§>ET:%r10_N"t~3 FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 22?
, THE CONSg'FITUfP¥0N OF :NDIA. PRAYING Ti} QUASH THE
. A "-----iFAF?UG§*€ED ORDERS DATED 22;1o/03 PASSED BY THE R4
" ~ .w:3E«Ai~n$rEVxuRE~A AND THE ORDER DATED 19/11/O8 PASSED
'B1'..%::*;z4:g" Rf'-?~1_'s?'IlZ)E ANNEXURE--f3 AND ETC.
.V " .. THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR oanms THIS DAY,
'A T THE. scum MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
in W.P.No.60016/2009, t§1§;p¢fifiQ’1″1ér*–
a Writ of mandamus directing z):s1§o:.ur;iei1!;_’N <:f."1"t§2§"LLr:y5i}sicier."'~. "
the land ofibred by the F-aétitgpnef'-aiid Vin:'i;£1¢ ;a1§g::;:a§ve.i'}o
direct the respondent No. ufoa; ap plications for
the appointment of thewafiotment mm:
in favour of second h ..
2.’ . ‘I:1f-..2009, the petitioner has
prayéé’-for nature of cerfiorari to quash the
»,c:§?;iicr. dated 10.2068 disqualiifging the petitioner and to
‘ V. 3 appéipt. as dealer.
” It is broughi to my nofice that the first
..;_°Vc:spc;;r1;:.9_1%;:1tT:;~indian Oi} Corporation Limited notified to the
pefiblié in the newspaper on 15.12.1200? in Vijaya Kaznataka
x Dairy invriting applications from the public ts
appoint dealers for 33.13 of their dicsci and petroicum
pmdlixztz in difihrcnt piaces in the Stain of Kamataka.
=;&”<Jw\"'
. ,1 -i
Petitioner in both the petitions, second A' and
another person by name Umesh Z
applications for dealership at §:fi1_lc¢.9{
Level I and Level 11 0omj1:.it§ec <§fAi:i'1'st
awarded marks to all '1l:l:1t:
same as per w’.?’.’N¢’;$15oo/2009.
Thereafter, the complaint against
the pe*n’tiQ:1€:::V W_.P. :stating that on false
1*epJit;:si9:j:1f.=2li’ion,.ll:’§tl§: scculiéldy marks. In this regard, first
I’€tS]:§4Z¥]V:1(§rCI2v1lC-‘»’.3v'(v).EI;”fA.i3*’¢=E:¥lI1:§:’lissticd shew cause notice and passed
a_n_V orcléi’ V_:V0:G….22A({)8V’.’Z.?..O08 disqualifying the petitioner in
15(}f)]’:2i’}O9. Further, the first respondent
V “a second Enterviesw and selected second
as the dealer in respctct of Akki Aim”, Hanagal
Ta11lI§, Haveri District. So also the first respondent zefuscd
” ll accept alternative lanai atfcmd by the pefitioner in
W.P.No.6016/2009. Therefore, both the petitieners are
before this Court for the prayers specified above.
5;
4. After healing arguments for it is
brought to my notice that the first
issued a revised guidelines for-iKissan
policy cimular No.1()8–€)2/07 meta “é8.tO2;;2oo:{. ” 5
zevised guidelines, it is _that.V’!}__zis
all the eartier policies as _czbot’2é’in.re§§czrd to issues,
which have been Admittedly, the
newspaper _no:ificat’ic3n 1;5.3t:é’;»’2Qo7, evaluation of
appfiééfiefizs I Level II committees, tlm
su1:;=.:e{1i1e:t1t- disquaiifying one of the petitioner,
1j1_<)_!: the Vfiiternative site offered by another
v.':}_jf§ct:;ti:o13t:r appeinfing the second mspondenst as dealer
V :é'a1;1E§sz§quc11t to the revised g11idc}.incs. Thcmfmre, in
of submitfing applications, their rejection and
;apfio§nt1nent of deaicr are ali governed by the Itviscd
2 'ttguideiines dated 23.02.2007. Clause 19 of the mused'
' filideiines reads as under:
XV/i
“19. Procedure for handling o§G1ievanoc;s u
The foilowing steps fof of
grievances/complaints. with regéiti ta seliectidxz ‘sf V<".='=–4t':.92":1"lfiz'*Vss'–iI)
case of KSK V h V V V' 2 " V
an Screening of .o0H1pIaifitsVi::y (*2; _COIl'lfI'Iifi.'<'3<': of 2 officers (of
'B' grade "&bov5e) qne"e«.a_ch frgam Retail and LPG
Discipline from Jwithiix the Sta-3 Officeto be nominated
by State? Retails" Head and .State{_LPf£'~: Head.
Ir SerL*e.rji'z*1g sfiiémit its report to State
4.R.3taiij Head who §viI1___fotj:va3t1 it to State Head with his
rec§0m”Ihé1_1datiC.n.”–
G ‘ Stat:-.”‘Hea{i will” take ‘f1:zrther decision and in case any
« invesfij§a~tiO11.. required State head will nominate an
L inves5tigaT,ingV€}fficer of minimum ‘B’ grade anc§ above for
me same. ‘ ~’
Past of fi’:e…grtievance redrcssal will be as per regular R08
2 ‘ ‘complaints received after 30 days of empanelment wili
» Vv “~!1(3t_ b6__t:nteI’tained.”
‘ AT In View of the fact thai in thc revised guidelines,
x j a is pnievided and a procedure is laid dawn for
V’ * fédmssal of grievances and complaints. The petifioncrs
without exhausting ghe remedy available under the revised
guidelines are before this Court in these two writ petitions.
:1
/A;;._~ .r”k/” \”
4/ xx
1.
delay, A11 contentions urged in these two writ petitions are
kitfi open. .»
8. It is brought to my notice_..§f.h?at=V.’
respondent has not ftu11ishcc1Mcopic$””of:’s¢i:£c’–_of ‘fh=t ‘~
documents sought for by the 1 ii-3. s{;,_ th\\[,,,
fimt respondent shall pmvflc tixépdpics
sought for by the
” $1l(E’._IyV)VéfiV’:iOIiS an: hereby dismissed.
%%%%% 332%