Karnataka High Court
Sri Vishwaroopa G K vs The Executive Director on 14 June, 2023
Author: Krishna S Dixit
Bench: Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:20387
WP No. 8914 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 8914 OF 2022 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI VISHWAROOPA G.K,
S/O KANTHARAJU G.S,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/O GUDDIGENAHALLI VILLAGE,
KERAGODU HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 416.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SATISH M DODDAMANI., SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SAGAR B B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
Digitally INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,
signed by
CHETAN B (MARKETING DIVISION),
C NO.29 "INDIAN OIL BHAVAN",
Location: P.KALINGARAO ROAD,
HIGH (MISSION ROAD),
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BENGALURU -560 027.
2. THE CHIEF DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER,
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD,
MYSURU DIVISION OFFICE,
NO.L35/A, 1ST FLOOR,
B.N.ROAD, MYSURU TRADE CENTER,
OPP. KSRTC BUS STAND,
MYSURU-570 001.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:20387
WP No. 8914 of 2022
3. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
(RETAIL SALES-II),
KASO, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED,
"INDIAN OIL BHAVAN",
NO.29, P KALINGA RAO ROAD,
(MISSION ROAD),
BENGALURU -560 027.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANTHOSH S NAGARALE.,
ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANNX-X DTD. 30.03.2022
ISSUED BY R-3 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner, a member of depressed class is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dated 30.03.2022 a copy whereof avails at Annexure-X whereby the Letter of Intent issued to him in respect of a Petrol Bunk has been rescinded. Learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the Petitioner argues that earlier his client was before this Court in W.P.597/2021 and the same having been allowed on 07.02.2022 vide Annexure-W, the matter was remanded for consideration afresh; there is absolutely no application of mind to the material facts; the subject land -3- NC: 2023:KHC:20387 WP No. 8914 of 2022 having already been converted to non-agricultural user, Petitioner fits into Group - I and therefore, the impugned order could not have been passed mindlessly.
2. After service of notice, the Respondents having entered appearance through their Panel Counsel resist the Writ Petition by filing the Statement of Objections on 14.09.2022. Learned Panel Advocate contends that as on the date the application was made, Petitioner was holding a registered lease of the agricultural land; such lease being contrary to Section 5 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, its cognizance cannot be taken and this view gains support from the Division Bench decision of this Court in W.A. No.216/2020 between VINOD M N vs. M/S. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, disposed off on 20.07.2021. That being the position, he contends, no relief can be granted to the Petitioner by faltering the impugned order.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition papers, this Court is -4- NC: 2023:KHC:20387 WP No. 8914 of 2022 inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
a) Petitioner was the sole Applicant and he had held a 20 year registered lease of the land in question, is not in dispute; true it is, this lease cannot be taken cognizance of by the Respondent - IOC in view of statutory bar enacted in Section 5 of the 1961 Act as observed by the Division Bench in VINOD supra. However, Petitioner had got the land converted to non-agricultural user at the hands of the Deputy Commissioner on 01.10.2019 & 18.11.2019 under Section 95 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
Therefore, whatever the arguable lacuna in the Conveyance stood removed by virtue of Conversion Orders.
b) The Deputy Commissioner had issued NOC dated 05.03.2020 in favour of the Petitioner; the jurisdictional Grama Panchayath had also issued Certificates in Form N.& 9 & 11A in terms of Rules 28 & 30 of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj Rules; the Special Land Acquisition Officer -5- NC: 2023:KHC:20387 WP No. 8914 of 2022 gave an Endorsement dated 16.11.2019 to the effect that the subject land is not notified for acquisition; the jurisdictional Tahsildar issued a certificate dated 30.11.2019 to the effect that there is no tenancy claim pending in respect of the said land; he also issued an Endorsement dated 16.01.2020 to the effect that the subject land does not fit into the precincts of Karnataka Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978; added, he also clarified in writing on 10.01.2020 that there is no violation of Sections 79A & 79B of the 1961 Act. That being the position, the Respondents could not have raised the issue of validity of the lease by invoking Section 5 of the said Act, as rightly argued by learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the Petitioner.
c) As already mentioned above, this is a second round of litigation; a member of depressed classes is driven to the Court twice by the impugned action at the hands of the answering Respondents; no reasonable -6- NC: 2023:KHC:20387 WP No. 8914 of 2022 person in the armchair of the answering Respondent would have passed order of the kind just by seeing the black letter of law namely Section 5 of the 1961 Act, turning a Nelson's Eye to what all has happened to the land subsequently. That itself constitutes an error of great magnitude apparent on the face of the record warranting interference of this Court to undo the injustice meted out to the Petitioner.
d) Normally, this Court would have remitted the matter for consideration afresh, had it been for the first time the Petitioner was here; as already mentioned above, this is a second round of legal battle, the first one having ended in a remand order; the only ground on which the impugned order is made is as to the illegality of lease of an agricultural land; if that is removed, then it cannot be disputed that Petitioner fits into Group-I Applicants in terms of IOC's Brochure on Selection of Dealers. Remand after remand, in the fact matrix of the kind would not yield justice to the deserving litigant. Writ Courts cannot deny -7- NC: 2023:KHC:20387 WP No. 8914 of 2022 relief at its own hands when everything is crystal clear, quoting some theories of law; they are meant to do substantial justice to the parties, if necessary by walking an extra mile as suggested by Lord Denning in his "Road to Justice" (published on December 1, 1988 by Fred B.Rothman & Company, London) Another remand will only set the parties in the battle field and thus, will not do justice.
In the above circumstances, Petition succeeds; Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the Respondents to treat the Petitioner's Candidature as falling in Group-I of the Brochure and process the matter further within an outer limit of eight weeks, should he satisfy all other requirements.
Costs reluctantly made easy.
Sd/-
JUDGE CBC