The Karnataka State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes exceeded its authority in directing the grant of a petroleum dealership without following proper legal procedures.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners have challenged the proceedings initiated by respondent No.1 in No.113/2017 and to quash the order dated 15.09.2017 passed therein.

2. The facts in brief are that respondent No.2 had applied for grant of petroleum dealership at Mandya District pursuant to paper publication dated 18.10.2014. The application of respondent No.2 was taken up for field verification and it was found that the property offered for the petroleum outlet did not match the requirement specified in the publication. Therefore, the application of respondent No.2 was rejected. The respondent No.2 challenged the said order before this Court in W.P.No.15113/2016. In the meanwhile, the petitioners offered that respondent No.2 may suggest an alternate site for establishment of the petroleum outlet. However, respondent No.2 did not comply with the same. Thereafter, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint before respondent No.1 seeking for a direction to the petitioners to grant a petroleum dealership at the land offered by respondent No.2. Based on such complaint, respondent No.1 issued a notice to the petitioners. The petitioners appeared and filed their objections challenging the authority of respondent No.1 to issue such a notice. It is stated that respondent No.1 without considering the objections, issued a further direction to the petitioners to provide petroleum dealership to respondent No.2. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent No.2 had filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the rejection of the application for petroleum dealership and the said writ petition was disposed off directing respondent No.2 to avail alterative remedy of appeal before the appropriate authority. He contends that respondent No.2 has not availed the said remedy and has therefore, given up her claim. He thus contends that the impugned proceedings before the respondent No.1 cannot stand. He also contends that respondent No.1 cannot issue an order directing the petitioners to provide petroleum dealership to respondent No.2 on the premise that she was discriminated. He contends that it is not the authority of respondent No.1 to do so under the Karnataka State Commission for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2002 (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 2002'). He invited the attention of the Court to Section 8 of the Act, 2002 and contends that the Commission has no power to issue such direction as the powers of the Commission are circumscribed by Section 8 which confers powers on the Commission to investigate and examine the working of various safeguards provided in the Constitution of India or under any other law for the time being in force or under any order of the Government for the welfare and protection of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Karnataka. He therefore, contends that issuing a direction to the petitioners to grant petroleum dealership to respondent No.2 is beyond the functions conferred on the Commission. He therefore, contends that the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 dated 15.09.2017 in Proceedings No.113/2017 is liable to be quashed.

4. Respondent No.2 though served with the notice of this writ petition, has not appeared before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 is also absent and therefore, this Court did not have the benefit of his submission.

6. Be that as it may, the petitioners had issued a notification prescribing certain criteria for grant of petroleum dealership. Respondent No.2 was one such applicant. The petitioners on inspection of the site offered by respondent No.2 for establishment of the petroleum outlet, found that the site offered did not match or correspond with the measurement of the property facing the road, as mentioned by the p