PADMAVATHI D vs INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED

- 1 -
WP No. 1954 of 2024


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.VIVEKANANDA

WRIT PETITION NO.1954 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

PADMAVATHI D
W/O PRAHALLADA T
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT SHIVANAGARA
CHIKKABYALADAKERE VILLAGE
CHITRADURGA DISTRCT-577 501
…PETITIONER






(BY SRI: KANTHARAJAPPA M.G, ADVOCATE)


AND:

1.
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED
HEAD OFFICE, INDIAN OIL BHAWAN
G-9, ALL YAVAR, JUNG MARG
BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI-400 051
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN

2.
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED
HAVING ITS AREA OFFICE
TH
AT NO.4 FLOOR, UNITY BUILDING
JCW ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER

3.
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED
BELLARY DIVISIONAL OFFICE
HEAD AND DIVISIONAL OFFICE
ST
1 FLOOR, PLOT NO.6
INFANTRY ROAD, CANTONMENT
BELLARY-583 104
REPRESENTED BY ITS TERRITORY HEAD






Digitally signed
by PAVITHRA B
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
WP No. 1954 of 2024


4. SRI ADARSHA R
S/O SRI. AJJI RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/AT MALASINGANAHALLI
HOLALKERE
CHITRADURGA-577 520
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: NAGARALE SANTOSH SUBHASHCHANDRA,
ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
SMT: ASHWINI O, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH REJECTED AWARD OF RO DEALERSHIP PASSED BY THE
R3 IN REF.IOC16951925386127 DATED 12.12.2023 IS
PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-F TO THE WP.
THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR
ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY,
T.P.VIVEKANANDA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.VIVEKANANDA

CAV ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question
the Communication dated 12.12.2023 at Annexure-F
issued by the respondent No.3 rejecting the application of
the petitioner for selection of retail outlet on rural retail
outlets.

- 3 -
WP No. 1954 of 2024


2. The facts which led the petitioner to approach
this Court through the present writ petition are briefly
stated as follows:
2.1 Respondent Nos.1 to 3 have notified the
Brochure for selection of dealers for regular and rural retail
outlets on 28.06.2023. The same has been notified in the
newspapers inviting application from the eligible
applicants. In response to the said notification, the
petitioner has applied for consideration of her application
under Group-1. The application filed by the petitioner is for
allotment of retail outlet dealership in respect of the
location “Mattodu to Chikkabyaladakere” on either side of
the State Highway at Hosadurga Taluk, Chithradurga
District. The process of draw of lots in respect of
applicants under Group-1 was held on 19.10.2023 and the
petitioner was provisionally selected by the respondent-
Corporation. The said selection was communicated to the
petitioner by communication dated 19.10.2023. In terms
of Clause 14(E)(viii) of the Brochure, the scrutiny of the
documents submitted by the applicants to be carried out

- 4 -
WP No. 1954 of 2024


only after receipt of 10% of the security deposit. The
petitioner has deposited the security deposit and she was
called upon to submit the documents relating to the
property.
2.2 Upon the petitioner submitting the documents,
the Land Evaluation Committee consisting of Sales Officer
and Engineers had visited the proposed project site of the
petitioner on 07.11.2023 to evaluate the suitability and
feasibility of the site. The description of the land belongs
to the petitioner is the land in Survey No.27/2B of
Doddabyladakere Village. At the time of inspection of the
project site, the members of the Committee have found
that the land of the petitioner is situated at
Doddabyladakere, which is after the Chikkabyaladakere
Villagae limit abutting the State Highway towards NH-
150A.
3. On the basis of the report of the Land
Evaluation Committee, respondent No.3 issued a
communication dated 12.12.2023 addressed to the
petitioner stating that “offered land is not falling within the

- 5 -
WP No. 1954 of 2024


advertised stretch”. It is further informed to the petitioner
that in view of the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner's
candidature is found ineligible. However, the candidature
of the petitioner would be considered for selection along
with Group-3 applicants as per the guidelines. It is the
said communication, which is under challenge in the
present writ petition.
4. The writ petition was opposed by respondents
No.2 by filing statement of objections, by which,
respondent No.2 sought to justify the rejection of the
candidature of the petitioner due to the reasons assigned
in Annexure-F. It is the contention of respondent No.2 that
the notified location is between Mattodu to
Chikkabyaladakere on either side of National Highway.
However, the land belongs to the petitioner is situated at
Doddabyladakere, which is beyond the notified point of
Chikkabyaladakere. Therefore, the respondents are
justified in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. It is
the contention of respondent No.2 that since the land
offered for setting up the retail outlet is not located within

- 6 -
WP No. 1954 of 2024


the notified location, the question of considering the other
eligibility criteria did not arise.
5. It is noticed from the records that after
rejection of the candidature of the petitioner, the
respondents have sent intimation to Group-2 applicants
who have participated in respect of the very same location
that is Mattodu to Chikkabyaladakere on either side of the
State Highway. In the said process, Sri. Adarsha R., was
provisionally selected for allotment of the retail dealership
and he has complied with all the requirements of
production of documents and deposit of 10% of initial
security deposit. In view of the interim order passed in this
writ petition, the respondents have not taken further steps
for issuance of the dealership license, which led the
provisionally selected candidate Sri. Adarsha R., to file an
application for impleading in this writ petition i.e.,
I.A.No.3/2024, which came to be allowed by order dated
28.08.2024 permitting the applicant to come on record as
respondent No.4.

- 7 -
WP No. 1954 of 2024


6. All the parties have filed the location maps
including map obtained through Dishank showing the
location of the properties of the petitioner and respondent
No.4. While this Court was not convinced with the sketch
and maps produced by the parties, by order dated
18.06.2026 directed the survey and inspection of the
property of the petitioner and respondent No.4 and to
submit a report by the Jurisdictional ADLR. Pursuant to
which, the learned AGA has filed a report on 13.08.2026,
which was taken on record.
7. Insofar as the property of the petitioner is
concerned, the factual finding recorded by the ADLR is as
follows:
“Location of the Petitioner's Property: The
property claimed by the Petitioner bearing Survey
No. 27//2 which is located in Doddabyaladakere *
village. (Before the survey number was 27//2B, *
which was cancelled by DDLR and fresh Phodi was
done in 2025 and survey number was assigned as
27//2) It is factually situated on either side of the *
Mattodu-Chikkabyaladakere State Highway.
Furthermore, it is located physically in
Doddabyaladakere Village as shown in the Survey
Sketch.”

- 8 -
WP No. 1954 of 2024


8. Insofar as the property of respondent No.4 is
concerned, the factual finding recorded by the ADLR is as
follows:
“Location of Respondent No. 4's Property: The
property belonging to Respondent No. 4 bearing
Survey No. 68//1 is situated in Doddabyaladakere *
village. It is factually situated on one side of the
Mattodu-Chikkabyaladakere State Highway.
Furthermore, it is located physically in
Doddabyaladakere Village as shown in the Survey
Sketch.”

9. The report of the ADLR also contains a sketch
identifying the starting point of Mattodu, the property of
respondent No.4, Village Doddabyladakere and the
property of the petitioner. The report also contains the
mahazar drawn at the time of inspection of the property,
in which, the petitioner and the respondent have affixed
their respective signatures.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
11. Reiterating the contentions urged in the writ
petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has
contended that, though, the property belongs to the
petitioner is situated in Doddabyladakere Village, however,

- 9 -
WP No. 1954 of 2024


the land in question is abutting the State Highway, which
runs upto NH-150A and therefore, the location of the
property of the petitioner meets the requirement of the
notification issued by the respondents. It is his further
submission that the property of respondent No.4 is also
situated at Doddabyladakere Village and therefore,
acceptance of the candidature of respondent No.4 and
rejection of the candidature of the petitioner, despite the
fact that the properties of both the petitioner and
respondent No.4 are situated at Doddabyladakere Village
is illegal and arbitrary.
12. It is his further submission that the entire
location of State Highway starting from Mattodu till it
reaches NH-150A will have to be considered to be the
location notified by the respondents. If it is so considered,
the property of the petitioner is well within the location
notified by the respondents.

13. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3
reiterating the contentions urged in the statement of

- 10 -
WP No. 1954 of 2024


objections contends that when the petitioner has not
satisfied the initial requirement of the property/project
site, being not within the location notified by respondent
Nos.1 to 3, is not entitled to challenge the interim
communication and stall the further process of awarding of
the retail outlet in favour of the successful applicant i.e.,
th
4 respondent.
14. It is his further submission that the deficiency
noted by respondent Nos.1 to 3 insofar as the candidature
of the petitioner is traceable to Clause 23 of the Brochure,
more particularly, Clause 23(q), which reads as follows:
“q) Offered land is not in the advertised
location/stretch and/or not meeting the Dealer
selection guidelines/statutory norms, etc.”

15. It is his further contention that the said
deficiency is non-rectifiable and such applications would
not be considered for further selection process.
Accordingly, seeks for rejection of the writ petition.
16. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4
adopting the submissions of the learned counsel for

- 11 -
WP No. 1954 of 2024


respondent No.3 has submitted that the property belongs
to respondent No.4 is well within the location notified by
the respondents, which fact has been affirmed by the
ADLR in his report dated 06.07.2026. It is the contention
of respondent No.4 that, though, his property is situated
within the revenue jurisdiction of Doddabyladakere,
however, the said land is in between Mattodu and
Chikkabyaladakere abutting the State Highway. Therefore,
the land belongs to respondent No.4 is within the location
notified by respondent No.4. Therefore, the writ petition is
liable to be rejected.
17. On hearing the learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4,
the points that arises for consideration are:
(i) Whether respondent Nos.1 to 3 are justified in
rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on
the ground that the land offered for
establishment of retail outlet is not falling
within the advertised location?
(ii) Whether the petitioner demonstrates that the
land belongs to her, which is offered for
establishment of retail outlet falls within the
advertised location?

- 12 -
WP No. 1954 of 2024


18. As noticed above, the ownership of the
properties of the petitioner and respondent No.4 is not in
dispute. Though, at one point in time there was dispute
with regard to the location of the properties of the
petitioner and respondent No.4, however, by virtue of the
inspection/survey report submitted by the jurisdictional
ADLR pursuant to the order passed by this Court on
18.06.2026 puts an end to the said controversy. The
report accompanied with the sketch submitted by the
ADLR clearly indicates that the land offered by the
petitioner is outside the notified location and the land
belongs to respondent No.4 is within the notified location
of Mattodu and Chikkabyaladakere.
19. Though, a feeble attempt has been made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner to convince this Court
that the location notified by respondent Nos.1 to 3 namely
Mattodu and Chikkabyaladakere runs upto State Highway
joining NH-150A and the property of the petitioner is just
before State Highway joining NH-150A, however, this
Court does not find favour with the submission of the

- 13 -
WP No. 1954 of 2024


learned counsel for the petitioner for the simple reason
that there is no ambiguity in the Brochure issued by
respondent Nos.1 to 3 notifying the location for which
applications are invited.
20. It is clear from the notification that the location
notified is between Mattodu and Chikkabyaladakere
meaning thereby the lands on either side of State Highway
starting from Mattodu and ending at Chikkabyaladakere.
When the advertised location is identified with two
villages, the starting point of the location will have to be
understood from the point at which the village limits of
Mattodu village starts and the end of Chikkabyaladakere
village limits. It cannot be understood that the State
Highway starting from Mattodu till it reaches NH-150A.
Such an interpretation would fall foul of the advertisement
issued by respondent Nos.1 to 3.
21. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court finds
no grounds to interfere with the impugned communication
dated 12.12.2023 at Annexure-F issued by respondent
Nos.1 to 3. Both the points formulated for consideration

- 14 -
WP No. 1954 of 2024


are answered against the petitioner and in favour of the
respondents.
22. In the result
dismissed
(i) The writ petition is .
(ii) In view of disposal of the writ petition, all
pending applications are disposed of
accordingly, since no separate orders are
required.



Sd/-
(T.P.VIVEKANANDA)
JUDGE



PB