Sri. Vinod N vs M/S Indian Oil Corporation Limited on 21 January, 2020

[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Sri. Vinod N vs M/S Indian Oil Corporation Limited on 21 January, 2020

Bench: P.S. Dinesh Kumar

                               1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

    DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2020

                         BEFORE

    THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR

     WRIT PETITION No.1213 OF 2020 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN :

SRI. VINOD N
S/O M.R. NANJUNDA 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                     ...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI. MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, 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
REP. BY ITS CHIEF DIVISIONAL
RETAIL SALES MANAGER                            ... RESPONDENT

(BY SHRI. VIGHNESHWAR S. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE )
                           ....
                                     2



     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO         QUASH THE
IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DTD.21.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT CORPORATION FOR REJECTION OF THE PETITIONER
CANDIDATURE    VIDE   ANNEXURE-G    AND    ALSO   IMPUGNED
COMMUNICATION     DTD.31.12.2019   WHICH   THE   PETITIONER
CANDIDATURE SHIFTED FROM GROUP-1 TO GROUP NO.3 VIDE
ANNEXURE-J AND ETC.

      THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                               ORDER

Petitioner's grievance is by communication dated 21st October 2019, the Indian Oil Corporation(IOC) has conveyed that the land document submitted by the petitioner does not fall under Group-1 and hence, petitioner's application would be considered under Group-3.

2. Shri. Mallikarjun C. Basareddy, learned Advocate for petitioner submitted that the communication is bad in law because, petitioner has furnished lease agreement dated 14th December 2018 as per Annexure-F.

3. Shri. Vighneshwar S. Shastri, learned Advocate for Corporation submitted that though petitioner claims to 3 have submitted 'Lease Agreement', the document submitted by him is in fact a 'Mortgage Deed'. Therefore, petitioner's case cannot be considered under Group-1.

4. Perusal of Annexure-F shows that it is a mortgage deed. Hence, no exception can be taken to the decision taken by IOC to consider petitioner's case in Group-3 category.

5. Resultantly, this petition fails and it is accordingly, dismissed.

No costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE SPS

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court