Karnataka High Court
WP/22249/2026 of SRI T R SAINATH Vs INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED on 10 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010491302026 NC: 2026:KHC:49834 WP No. 22249 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 22249 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI T R SAINATH S/O TS RAJAGOPAL SETTY AGED
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 22249 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI T R SAINATH
S/O TS RAJAGOPAL SETTY
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS.
2.
SMT. T SUNITHA SAINATH
W/OTR SAINATH
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.13, 4TH CROSS,
5TH MAIN, CHAMRAJPET,
BENGALURU-560004
ALSO AT NO.82, SAI ARCADE,
GANDHI BAZAAR MAIN ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU-560004.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VINAY SWAMY C, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY IT'S DIVISIONAL
MANAGER, OFFICE AT NO.28,
1ST FLOOR, BENGALURU
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MISSION ROAD,
BENGALURU-560027.
2.
DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER
OF EXPLOSIVES PESO,
REPRESENTED BY IT'S AUTHORISED OFFICER OFFICE
AT 2ND FLOOR, CITY CENTER,
OPP TO HOTEL ROOPA,
HC-KAR
BALMATTA ROAD,
MANGALORE-575 001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GIREESHA KODGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI. MUKUND PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION
OF
INDIA
PRAYING
TO
DIRECTING
THE
RESPONDENTS
TO
THE
CONSIDER
AND
ACT
UPON
THE
REPRESENTATION DATED 14.03.2026 IMMEDIATELY GIVEN BY
THE PETITIONERS I.E ANNEXURE G.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
The writ petition is filed seeking of the following reliefs:
"Wherefore, the petitioners above named prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to:
A) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ directing the respondents to the consider and act upon the representation dated 14.03.2026 immediately given by the petitioners i.e Annexure- G;
B) Pass such other writ/s or order/s which are deemed to fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has filed suit [OS.No.1503/2024] against the respondent No.1 - Indian Oil
HC-KAR
Corporation Limited1 to direct IOCL to quit, vacate and hand over vacant possession of the property that the IOCL has taken on lease pursuant to the lease dated 05.03.2004. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 10.09.2025 passed by the LXXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Commercial Court, Bangalore2. The judgment and decree passed by the Commercial Court was the subject matter of challenge in Com.A.P.No.591/2025. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated at 21.11.2025 (Annexure-A to the writ petition), declined the application for stay made by IOCL to stay the judgment and decree dated 10.09.2025 passed by the Commercial Court. Consequent to the same, it is not in dispute that the petitioner (plaintiff in OS.No.1503/2024) instituted execution proceedings and has taken possession of the property in question.
3. A representation dated 14.03.2026 (Annexure-G to the writ petition) is made by the petitioner to take back the underground fuel tanks, dispensing pumps, pipeline and other equipment belonging to IOCL.
1 Hereinafter referred as to 'IOCL' 2 Hereinafter referred as to 'Commercial Court'
HC-KAR
4. Having regard to the fact that, the application for stay made by IOCL has been rejected by the Division Bench of this Court, as noticed above, the relief sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition is to be granted.
5. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is partly allowed;
ii) A mandamus is issued to respondent No.1 to consider the representation dated 14.03.2026 (Annexure-G to the writ petition) as expeditiously as possible in any event not later than four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision /action taken on the said representation to the petitioner.
(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE
PNV - List No.: 1 Sl No.: 140