Vinod Vs Indian Oil Corporation

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
WRIT APPEAL NO.216/2020 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
VINOD N,
S/O M R NANNUNDA SWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/AT NO.18/19,
SRI RAJARAJESHWARI LAYOUT,
MUDIGERE PALYA,
BIDANAKERE POST,
GOTTIKERE STAGE,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT,
PIN-572 130. …APPELLANT
(BY SRI M.K.SAMPATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED,

MYSORE DIVISION OFFICE,
NO.36/A 1ST FLOOR,
B N ROAD,
MYSORE TRADER CENTER,
OPP KSRTC BUS STAND,
MYSORE-570 001,
2
REP BY ITS CHIEF DIVISIONAL

RETAIL SALES MANAGER. …RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VIGHNESHWARA S SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF

THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT 1961 PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
IN WP NO.1213/2020 DATED 21/01/2020 AND ALLOW THE
WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA J.,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The present writ appeal is arising out of order dated
21.01.2020 passed in W.P. No.1213/2020 (Vinod N vs. M/s.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.) by the learned Single Judge.
2. The facts of the case reveals that the appellant
before this Court pursuant to a Notification issued by M/s.
Indian Oil Corporation for establishment of retail outlet
submitted an application on 17.12.2018 and the same was
considered by M/s. Indian Oil Corporation.
3. The appellant was declared as a successful
candidate in the draw held for selection and on 23.06.2019 a
letter was issued directing the appellant to remit a sum of

3
Rs.50,000/- and to complete the formalities. Vide
communication dated 21.10.2019, he was informed that the
land offered by him does not fall under Group – 1 as per
Market Discipline Guidelines and he has been shifted to
Group – 3.
4. A petition was preferred before this Court stating
that a lease deed was very much submitted and the M/s.
Indian Oil Corporation could not have treated it as mortgage
deed and no loan was advanced to the appellant. The
learned Single Judge while deciding the matter has observed
that the deed is a transfer deed and not a mortgage deed.
This Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid
document and the document does not reveal at all that any
loan was advanced at any point of time to the appellant.
Otherwise also, as per the Market Discipline Guidelines, in
case a land offered by an applicant under Group – 1 is not
found suitable, three months’ time has to be given to him to
provide suitable alternative land in the advertised location /
stretch.
4
5. At this juncture, learned counsel Sri. Dhananjay
V Joshi who is the counsel in the connected matter, has
argued before this Court that the notice to provide
alternative land is only given in case there is no person
available under Groups – 1 and 2 has offered a suitable land.
6. The relevant extract of the brochure relating to
selection of dealers for regular and rural retail outlets under
the heading “land” is reproduced as under:
“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

5
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 / no 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

6
period or the land provided is found not meeting the
laid down criteria, the application would be rejected.”
7. The learned counsel for M/s. Indian Oil
Corporation has not been able to point out whether there are
other persons available who have offered suitable land under
Groups – 1 and 2.
8. Resultantly, in case there is no other person
available in Group – 1 or Group – 2 who has been found
suitable keeping in view the land requirements, M/s. Indian
Oil Corporation shall give three months’ notice to all the
applicants for offering a suitable land and in case the land
offered by some other applicants under Groups – 1 and 2 is
held to be suitable, then the requirement of three months’
notice to the present appellant does not arise.
9. So far as the lease / mortgage deed is
concerned, undisputedly, the land in question is an
agricultural land and as per the provisions of Karnataka Land
Reforms Act, 1961, keeping in view Section 5, no tenancy
can be created by way of lease in respect of agricultural land.

7
Hence, the so called lease / mortgage deed as it is contrary
to the statutory provisions cannot be looked into for the
purpose of “land” under the selection criteria. Otherwise
also, the title of the deed is “mortgage deed” as reflected
from the document which is on record as per Annexure-F.
10. This Court does not find any reason to interfere
with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed with the
aforesaid observation.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
ykl

Vinod Vs Indian Oil Corporation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vinod Vs Indian Oil Corporation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vinod Vs Indian Oil Corporation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

WRIT APPEAL NO.216/2020 (GM-RES)

(BY SRI M.K.SAMPATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED,

REP BY ITS CHIEF DIVISIONAL

(BY SRI VIGHNESHWARA S SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF

THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

The present writ appeal is arising out of order dated

21.01.2020 passed in W.P. No.1213/2020 (Vinod N vs. M/s.

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.) by the learned Single Judge.

2. The facts of the case reveals that the appellant

before this Court pursuant to a Notification issued by M/s.

Indian Oil Corporation for establishment of retail outlet

submitted an application on 17.12.2018 and the same was

considered by M/s. Indian Oil Corporation.

3. The appellant was declared as a successful

candidate in the draw held for selection and on 23.06.2019 a

letter was issued directing the appellant to remit a sum of

Rs.50,000/- and to complete the formalities. Vide

communication dated 21.10.2019, he was informed that the

land offered by him does not fall under Group – 1 as per

Market Discipline Guidelines and he has been shifted to

4. A petition was preferred before this Court stating

Indian Oil Corporation could not have treated it as mortgage

deed and no loan was advanced to the appellant. The

learned Single Judge while deciding the matter has observed

that the deed is a transfer deed and not a mortgage deed.

This Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid

loan was advanced at any point of time to the appellant.

Otherwise also, as per the Market Discipline Guidelines, in

case a land offered by an applicant under Group – 1 is not

found suitable, three months’ time has to be given to him to

provide suitable alternative land in the advertised location /

5. At this juncture, learned counsel Sri. Dhananjay

V Joshi who is the counsel in the connected matter, has

argued before this Court that the notice to provide

alternative land is only given in case there is no person

available under Groups – 1 and 2 has offered a suitable land.

6. The relevant extract of the brochure relating to

selection of dealers for regular and rural retail outlets under

the heading “land” is reproduced as under:

“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

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

Applications under Group 3 would be processed /