Karnataka High Court
M/S Premier Agencies vs The Karnataka Lokayukta And Ors on 26 October, 2021
Bench: R.Devdas, Rajendra Badamikar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
WRIT PETITION No.201439/2021 (GM-KLA)
BETWEEN:
M/s Premier Agencies
Indian Oil Petrol Pump
Railway Station Road
Gulbarga-585101
Represented through
Its Proprietor
Sri Basavaraj Patil
S/o Galangappa Patil
Aged about 66 years
R/o Khuba Plot, Kalabragi-585102
... Petitioner
(By Sri Ravi B. Patil, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Karnataka Lokayukta
M.S. Building
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Veedhi
Bengaluru-560 001
2
2. The Chief Divisional
Retail Sales Manager
Indian Oil Corporation Limited
No.6, 1st Floor, Infantry Road
Cantonment Bellary-583104
3. The Senior Divisional Retail
Sales Manager
Indian Oil Corporation Limited
No.6, 1st Floor, Infantry Road
Cantonment Bellary-583104
4. Chief Engineer Electricity
(Operation), Corporate Office
GESCOM, Kalaburagi-585102
... Respondents
(By Sri Subhash Mallapur, Advocate for R1;
Sri Amaresh S. Roja, Advocate for R2 and R3;
Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Advocate for R4)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of
certiorari thereby quash the impugned recommendation
made by the 1st respondent to the 4th respondent invoking
Sec. 12 (1) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act dated 11.09.2020 in
file No.Complaints/Lok/Glb/3013/2017/ARE-14 as at
Annexure-D and is one without jurisdiction and
consequentially to set aside the impugned demand notice
dated 01.02.2021 issued by the 4 th respondent based on the
report of the 1st respondent enclosed to the correspondence
letter dated 23.02.2021 as at Annexure-F and to issue a writ
of mandamus directing the 4th respondent to renew the lease
tenure at such revised rate, which is already accepted by the
4th respondent for a further period of such revised conditions
by considering the representation dated 15.07.2016 and
14.06.2019.
3
This petition coming on for preliminary hearing this
day, R. Devdas J., made the following:
ORDER
R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Although the matter is coming up for preliminary hearing, with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsels for the respondents, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. The petitioner is a registered partnership firm, carrying on its business of establishing and running petrol bunk. The petitioner entered into a lease under a memorandum of agreement dated 18.07.1977 executed by the authorities of Indian Oil Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'IOC' for short). It is not disputed that the land in question which belonged to the erstwhile Karnataka Electricity Board (which is now known as GESCOM), entered into a registered lease deed dated 22.07.1972 with the IOC and the IOC has in turn entered into an agreement with the petitioner herein. It 4 appears that on a complaint instituted by some third party before the Hon'ble Lokayukta, an enquiry was initiated and the Hon'ble Lokayukta has passed an order dated 11.09.2020, at Annexure-D under Section 12(1) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 directing the GESCOM to collect the arrears of rent along with the escalated rents due between 1973 to 2017 from IOC, within a period of eight weeks. As a result of which, GESCOM issued a notice to IOC demanding payment of arrears of rent along with the escalated price and in turn IOC has issued a notice dated 22.03.2021 Annexure-E to the petitioner citing the orders issued by the Hon'ble Lokayukta, the notice issued by GESCOM to IOC on 01.02.2021 and consequently the IOC has demanded payment of arrears of `22,79,306/- towards lease rental charges.
3. The petitioner has called in question the order dated 11.09.2020 passed by the Hon'ble Lokayukta 5 under Section 12(1) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act and the notice date 22.03.2021 issued by the respondent-IOC.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Hon'ble Lokayukta was not appraised of the fact that a registered lease deed was entered into between the erstwhile KEB and the IOC and further, a sub-lease was granted by IOC in favour of the petitioner, in accordance to the statutory provisions governing the allotment of dealership of petrol bunks. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been paying a sum of `28,800/- from November, 2016 as monthly rentals and since the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings or enquiry before the Hon'ble Lokayukta, these aspects were not brought to the notice of the Lokayukta.
5. Having heard the learned counsels and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that the 6 notice dated 22.03.2021 issued by the respondent-IOC to the petitioner herein is a consequence of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Lokayukta. Admittedly, the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings before the Hon'ble Lokayukta. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the notice issued by the respondent-IOC, it should be permitted to contest the same in accordance with law. However, the directions issued by the Hon'ble Lokayukta on 11.09.2020 at Annexure-D should not cause any impediment to the petitioner.
6. In that view of the matter, this writ petition stands disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to proceed in accordance with law in respect of the notice dated 22.03.2021 issued by the respondent-IOC. However, it is made clear that the directions issued by the Hon'ble Lokayukta on 11.09.2020 at Annexure-D shall not be held against the petitioner, since the said 7 order has been passed without notice to the petitioner. All contentions are left open.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE swk