Indian Oil Corpn Ltd vs Sri Y T Narendra Babu S/O Thammaiah on 19 November, 2009

[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

Indian Oil Corpn Ltd vs Sri Y T Narendra Babu S/O Thammaiah on 19 November, 2009

Bench: V.G.Sabhahit

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 19"" DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009

PRESENT Q L

THE HON'BLE MR. P.D, DINAKARAN, :j:U'S--TI«CE'AA#'  "

AND V'  '

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE V.G'IvS.:ﬁ;.'B'§~iAHIf   

WRIT APPEAL NO.32Aé;;gO0I§ G_r¥?I§-RES--.I_

BETWEEN:

INDIAN OIL CORPORATICN.C.TLTD.::;. :   
REP BY ITS CHIEF DI'JI'SIC')fNAE_" _;     I
RETAIL SALES MANAGER. " f  %

BY SRI R.,_KVULAKAf?.:;NI' R. "
   ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI°R. CIO PA'L§\}R'F{I§F#-~!N:)5<I,. ADv., )

AND...' "

 SRI-y,T.'I~I.ARENDRA BABU

 "S,/_O.,THAM N-AIAH

. EIIITAGSEO:v»--.ABSO'UT 55 YEARS
 No.3, YELEMANE 3." MAIN

 15'? .ST*Ac3E, 157 CROSS

 WEST OF CHORD ROAD

 * RAIAIINAGAR
 BANGALORE-IO

.4 -

 2} UNION OF INDIA
 REP., BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PETROLEUM
AND NATURAL GAS



SHASHI BHAVAN,
NEW DELHI

(BY SR1 G.A.SRIE<Al\iTE GOWDA, ADV., FOR R-1)

...RESPoi\ipENTSj"{Tj~--.f_

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED Us/~S._44   

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING,Tois'ET'~.AsIpE_"  

THE ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETI:TI..oN N-o,21o:ix6/2o.();I-~-V. 

DATED 28.7.2009.
THIS vvRIT APPEAL coMIAi'G._vo'.i\ji§%oR~.2PREI.I.MINARv
HEARING THIS DA?r',""~§§ABIiAH1'7": §EL..wTERED THE

FOLLOWING: --

This _.Wriat 'IiA1Pp'eai" is filed by M/s. Indian on

:'V:._Corpor'é§t.ioEi'I:' §vl..'t0ﬂ'lited """ We respondent No.5 in W.P.

vxiﬁi-ta~erein the learned single Judge of this 9' Vi"Court''-has,.'_''al.EdiAied the writ petition and quashed the 'orders and directed the appellant to process the 4'_ap'p.lViVtat--ion fiEed by the writ petitioner or his nominees for Eisstie: of dealerships co--tez'mini,Is with the lease of Fahd on l""WVhich the retail outiets are established and on similar 5 I 2?

l\"§i'-5'-..,"§ -3- terms and conditions as in the case of other land owners, immediately prior to February 2003, and has granted~.rfo.p'r-Vs' months time from the date of receipt of compliance of the direction issued __b.y._the si'n§_i:ie Eudge.

2. Respondent W.P. No.1016/2007 under .227 of the Constitution of indie rseeigiygi to the respondents ti:ieij.';il§pl:ication filed by the petitioner_,/._no'rnifneles:'_ dealership and to appoint .L4"i"3ﬁ)':l"l'--'slr'iE3"l'3S as dealers dnder respondents'a2 to foirkqéuashing the impugned letter _.dated.iQ6u.U9.2OOV6" by the second respondent herein has __'G' to the writ petition and letter dated by the second respondent in the writ

--petitio"n as.éperfAnnexdre 'l-l' to the writ petition in so far it *relate's to petitioner and for issue of writ or order that

-iinay lbedeemed fit in the circumstances of the case, _5, department of explosive etc. The petitioner has obtained the aforesaid permission from the local authorities..,b4\,i_i'~-_ incurring substantial expenditure and by spending'4,ti'r§;i-..,l valuable time, energy and efforts. __,T.h,e4 other"corn'dit'i'on'_s.V that were required to be satisfied byl'/athe_'_'petitioner_:for:'Vt:he_°T_A commencement of operation Vt»)'l.°'L";-ggtail idptletspp under various statutes like, theVAP.ai_r'tn.err't_,of The Workmen Compensationiﬁict-,. Disputes Act, the Minimum Insurance Act, The Funds and Miscellaneo.us"..Act:;--1;,,_Theit Bonus Act, The Factories and Establishment Act were compliedV"'iw.ith,.if'l§eta:i"i'rif44outlets were installed under andV."'s--up_e_ryision of the petitioner. The IBP operating outlets on its own appointing petitioner as COCO operators with an ass.urance.'that the petitioner/ nominees would be made deai_ersV'within a short time on land owners category. 3.2 It is further averred that at the commencement of the business, each of the petitioner \,,,j}s _gc enhanced the commission by paying such contractors 90% of the commission that is actually paid to the dealer. by whatever name it is called, whether it is dealer4g:oi5fa~:A contractor, the variation being margina.i.,._the _-:')e't'it'io'ner"'dyi'_d.V not make it an issue to legally enforceiigthei the contractors are required t'oV._V:vpt.irchaseV:_' products by paying amount in aVd\.ta:ngce"'agnd..the--r1_tagic§e the petroleum products just Vlillkeﬁhother';'ri.ag'uVll.ar::cigaier, who is doing the busivnées-s__' Company.

Respondents the petitioner that they- ::'co_:ntiili.ue:::V'At'he:l_a.ppointments of the nominees ofhthe operators till they made the petitioiier/_ regular dealers and the pv¢.ti.tioner..«.ig'on_a fideV."'bei:iey'e:-cl that IBP Company would gra'n_Vt»Aifegular»:A_V4dea.iA*§§r5__hip to the petitioner / nominee in per Annexure 'A' . However, glarelgspyondentsgg 2 have issued endorsements as per and 'I-i' dated 06.09.2006 and wherein representation of the petitioner / . ' =.._nomVinees for appointment as dealer as per the scheme on lithe basis of which, petitioner had made the land avaiiabie, xii»

-13 be given to the petitioner or his nominee and implementation of new poiicy has been upheid by the Court of New Delhi in LPA Nos.158/2007, 159/2oo7_:i_ei'ric:i*5{§ff WP (Civil) No.18261/2006 and other Connected.*nid*tters'§'=: '- He has aiso reiied upon the decision, Pradesh High Court in W.A. No.soi:;<.2.oo7"'.*-..}i.cr;oraVi'hg; :2 the tearned counsel for the V__petition_e_ir';:-sp-egiaiiieatxeﬁ fiieid against the said order has Hon' ble Supreme Court on further submitted that the justified in hoiding by the first responder2t*.,_to--_ -he wouid be offered dealershiﬁn the {and for lease for a paltry stsiijfitiv and promise has been broken and su_spAe:ns.ion _Viof.%thA.e'~-,poiicy was not intimated to the writ petition'er,'\A}hen»._ttie"Viease was executed and wherefore, the petitioner-riiis'entitied to be appointed as a deaier under 'th:ee».sChenjeVVof 2002 and the Eearned singie Judge ought to i1.a's¢e"-disnﬁissed the writ petitioni \\;.}s ,15M been disputed. Annexure 'A' is the subject poiicy, which cieariy provided that where the owners of the landi'0f:fere.d their iand on tong iease, the Company outiet and give them deaiershipw..__Thej'iiactiljjthlat,'_'_the,_ petitioner parted with the land on:"iieas_ei*~t3y in favour of respondents on bas'i'-:~ﬁof_tlh.e 'EiSSvLi.f3:flC€ '~ ' given in the scheme as perV,,..,An'riiex'u_,re .;'A"--,._to,,,.the writ petition dated .wa.5_Vcieariy stated that the owneréof the as deaier for the ouitieitll is also not disputed, H 'e.on_tended by the appeiiant herein isﬂthat'the':sa'i'd,,,:po'i4icy:_.€iated 08.10.2002 was kept in abeyance from" Fel5'ruai<y and thereafter, new policy ___has ,.:i?,g§n'i evollnve-d.___o_n,. 27.12.2004 and allotment of "'._Vd»ea'iershi.p'«wa.s"'su_spended on the basis of the scheme of the,xyeiarx'200:2.'A',:=.V'i;he fact that the said suspension of the 'yscherheyy daytedv 08.10.2002, wherein owners of the iands "..:w<§u'id._beappointed as dealers on their parting with their on iong term lease with the Corporation, which was a of the policy has not been intimated to the writ petitioner is also not disputed. There is no materiai

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court