Dismissed

Manju Gupta v. Union of India and 2 Others

Allahabad HC21 Nov 2019WRIC/27164/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ enforcement of a 2004 Letter of Intent for a petrol pump outlet rejected due to land size norms. Court denied writ due to delay, quiescent scheme, and existing rules, leaving civil suit and refund claim open.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner left to file civil suit for damages; allowed 6 weeks to apply for refund of any payment made to Corporation.

Manju Gupta Vs Union of India and 2 Others — Consumer Protection | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27164 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Manju Gupta Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Varad Nath Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Vikas Budhwar,Yogendra Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Varad Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vikas Budhwar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation.

¶6

By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has sought to enforce the Letter of Intent issued in the year 2004 by the Respondent Corporation under the Scheme called as Landlord Linked Scheme as is apparent from the letter of intent dated 06.12.2004.

¶7

From perusal of the necessary documents brought on record, it is clear that the offer was proposed for Retail Dealership to the petitioner by the respondent Corporation through the said letter, but the Petrol Pump Outlet could not be commissioned because certain formalities imposed by the Development Authority, Agra could not be accomplished by the petitioner. It further transpires from the perusal of the documents brought on record that all kind of administrative approvals of different authorities were requested by the Corporation for setting up the retail outlet, but Development Authority did not issue approval as the land size offered by the landlord was not as per the norms prescribed by the Agra Development Authority, Agra.

¶8

It is argued that Agra Development Authority has come to amend the bye-laws in respect to the land size for setting up Petrol Pump Outlet and therefore, those conditions that were existing in the year, 2004 stand relaxed. However, it transpires from the record after the relaxation was granted by the Agra Development Authority in respect to the land site for setting up Petrol Pump Outlet, no new agreement has come to be executed between the petitioner and Corporation till date and subsequently the applicant approached the Corporation very belatedly in year 2015. Thus, it only depended upon the discretion of the Corporation to set up petrol pump which was advertised far back in the year 2004 or to explore its new business prospects. The petitioner has come up before this

¶9

Court for issuance of a direction to the respondent Corporation to consider the candidature of the petitioner for setting up the retail outlet for which offer was made in year 2004.

¶10

We find that the petitioner has approached this Court after a very long delay. Besides that, we are also of the opinion that the petitioner cannot invoke the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction for a cause of action which never arose on account of the then rules prevalent taking the plea that rules have now come to be modified with the passage of time, to the advantage of the petitioner. Moreover, we made a pointed query to the respondent Corporation as to whether the Corporation is going to undertake any exercise for installation of retail outlet in favour of the petitioner. It is submitted that there is no more such a possibility for the Corporation to take any such decision now as the policy has come to be changed and the earlier scheme under which advertisement was issued in the year 2004 is no more in existence.

¶11

In view of the above, we are not inclined to issue any writ, order or direction as prayed for under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, it is left open to the petitioner to file a civil suit for the damages, if any, caused by any misrepresentation at the end of the Corporation.

¶12

We hastened to clarify that if any payment was made by the petitioner to the Corporation pursuant to the letter of intent issued in his favour by the Corporation, he may apply for the refund of the said entire amount and if such application to that extent for refund is made within a period of six weeks from today, such application shall be considered in accordance with law and shall be disposed off by the Corporation considering the fact that petitioner was never at fault.

¶13

Order Date :- 21.11.2019 LBY

¶14

(Ajit Kumar, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

Manju Gupta v. Union of India and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manju Gupta v. Union of India and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jahangir Ahmad and Ors. Vs Union Bank of India and Ors.

Guljari Lal Vs State of U.P. and Others

Dilip Tiwari @ Dilip Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Dhadhiwal Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. P.S. Revenue Dept. and Ors.

Udai Construction Company Vs U.P. State Warehousing Corporation and Another

Ramwati Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others