The oil company must consider dealership-site location disputes under the notification’s grievance-redressal clause.

The petitioner applied for a Scheduled Caste-reserved petroleum dealership at the advertised location of Shankarabande and was shortlisted and selected.

The Corporation sought documents and clarifications regarding the land offered; after the petitioner submitted records, the Corporation rejected his application on the ground that the required documents had not been furnished.

The petitioner disputed the rejection, asserting that the land abutted the Shankarabande State Highway, while the Corporation relied on revenue records identifying the land as situated in Bisalhalli rather than Shankarabande.

The petitioner challenged the rejection under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the petitioner’s offered land was situated within the advertised location of Shankarabande, or whether its location in Bisalhalli justified rejection of the application.

2. Whether the Court should determine the disputed location issue in the writ petition or direct the petitioner to pursue the notification’s grievance-redressal process.

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution provide the basis for the High Court’s writ jurisdiction.

Clause 18 of the dealership notification establishes a grievance-redressal procedure, including investigation and disposal of complaints and a requirement that disposal be by a speaking order.

The Court identified the location of the offered land as a factual matter for determination by the respondent authorities.

The parties’ competing submissions turned on whether the offered land, despite abutting a road leading to Shankarabande, was within the advertised location; the Corporation relied on the RTC extract showing the land in Bisalhalli.

Because the dispute concerned the factual location of the land, the Court left its determination to the Corporation under the notification’s grievance-redressal procedure rather than deciding the merits itself.

It disposed of the petition, permitting the petitioner to make a representation within 15 days of receiving the certified order and directing the Corporation to consider it in accordance with law and Clause 18, and pass appropriate orders within 30 days of receipt.

The interim order was to continue until the representation was considered; any pending interlocutory application was also disposed of.