Karnataka HC Upholds Rejection Of Woman’s Indian Oil Dealership Bid, Finding Her Plot Outside The Advertised Mattodu–Chikkabyaladakere Stretch

Indian Oil Corporation invited applications for a rural retail outlet dealership at the advertised location “Mattodu to Chikkabyaladakere.”

The petitioner applied under Group 1 and was provisionally selected, but her application was rejected after the Corporation found that her offered land in Survey No. 27/2B, Doddabyaladakere Village, fell outside the advertised stretch.

The petitioner challenged that rejection under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, arguing that her land abutted the relevant State Highway.

Respondent No. 4, a provisionally selected Group 2 applicant, was impleaded.

Following a court-directed survey, the jurisdictional ADLR reported that the petitioner’s land was outside the advertised location, while Respondent No. 4’s land was within it.

The Court considered Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, under which the petitioner sought judicial review of the rejection communication.

Clause 14(E)(viii) provided for scrutiny of documents after receipt of the 10% security deposit, while Clause 23(q) identified land outside the advertised location or stretch as a deficiency.

The Court treated the advertised location—“between Mattodu and Chikkabyaladakere”—as referring to the stretch from the limits of Mattodu village to the limits of Chikkabyaladakere village.

The ADLR’s survey report and sketch established that the petitioner’s land was physically in Doddabyaladakere Village and outside the advertised stretch, whereas Respondent No. 4’s land was within that stretch.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s broader interpretation that the notified location extended along the highway up to its junction with NH-150A.

Because the advertisement identified the location by reference to two villages, the relevant limits were the village boundaries, not the highway’s further course.

The Corporation therefore properly treated the petitioner’s offered land as outside the advertised location.

Finding no ground to interfere with the rejection communication dated 12 December 2023, it dismissed the writ petition and disposed of the pending applications.