Dismissed

Nitin Agarwal v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and 3 Others

Allahabad HC9 Dec 2020WRIC/17087/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a public interest litigation, the High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging BPCL's advertisement and the District Magistrate's No-objection certificate for granting a fuel dealership to a new party. The Court held that the distance requirements were met and the guidelines did not bar the setting up of the outlet on the notified State road.

What did the court decide?

The petition seeking quashal of the advertisement dated 25.11.2018 and the No-objection Certificate dated 04.03.2020/20.03.2020 has been dismissed.

Nitin Agarwal Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17087 of 2020 Petitioner :- Nitin Agarwal Respondent :- Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinayak Mithal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Agrawal,Vikas Budhwar

¶3

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶5

The petitioner herein is a dealer/proprietor of Shiv Satvik fuel station which is a Retail Outlet (RO) of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) at Gawan, DistrictSambhal.

¶6

By means of the present petition, the petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:

¶7

I. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the Advertisement published by Bharat Petroleum Corporation LTd. on 25.11.2018 in respect of the location Gawan WML (within municipal limits) mentioned at serial no.3217 of the list of the identified locations;

¶8

II. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the Noobjection Certificate granted by the District Magistrate, DistrictSambhal on 04.03.2020/20.03.2020;

¶9

III. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondent no.2 to forthwith and expeditiously decide the complaint/objection filed by the petitioner on 19.05.2020 and if possible within the time period stipulated by this Hon'ble Court;

¶10

IV. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondent no.1 not to execute the Dealership Agreement in favour of the respondent no.4.

¶11

The challenge is to the grant of dealership in favour of the respondent no.4 of the location-in-question, which is on a U.P. PWD road (Other District Road).

¶12

The first submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the advertisement has been issued in contravention of the "U.P. Guidelines for issuing NOC for setting up of fuel stations along UPPWD Roads 2019" (in short "PWD Guidelines") on 04.12.2019. Submission is that the PWD Guidelines are applicable to all new stations set up on UPPWD roads of various categories including the proposed site.

¶13

The contention is that Clause (3) of the PWD Guidelines provides for establishment of fuel stations at urban stretches which passes through a town with a population of twenty thousand and more, as per Census 2011. The Nagar Panchayat, Gawan, as per Census, 2011 certified, has a population of 9,568.

¶14

It is then submitted that the successful candidate, i.e. respondent no.4 had offered a plot at Khasra No.844, village- Gawan, Tehsil Gunnaur, P.S.- Rajpura, Sambhal which is a public utility land, recorded as Dhaka land in the revenue record.

¶15

Last submission is that the distance of the location-inquestion from the retail outlet run by the petitioner is less

¶16

than 300m, which is again in contravention of the PWD Guidelines, 2019.

¶17

Sri Vikas Budhwar, learned counsel for the respondent no.1- BPCL invited attention of the Court to the communication dated 02.06.2020 appended as Annexure-'23' of the writ petition, wherein the objections made by the petitioner has been decided. Point no.1, the said order has been placed before us to assert that the distance of the location-in-question is 300m. No-objection certificate has been issued by the District Magistrate under Section 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, after considering the position of the plot-in-question.

¶18

Having heard the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and perused the record,

¶19

As far as the first objection of learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, we find that the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that fuel stations have to be established only on the urban stretches which pass through the towns having population of 20,000 and more is based on misconception and misreading of Clause (3) of the PWD Guidelines, 2019.

¶20

The said guidelines have been framed in exercise of powers under Section 17 read with Section 5 of the 'U.P. Roadside Land Control Act, 1945'.

¶21

The Clause 3 of the UPPWD Guidelines reads as under:

¶22

"3. These guidelines are applicable to all Fuel Stations, with or without other user facilities of rest

¶23

areas along un-divided carriageway and divided carriageway sections of State Roads in plain, rolling and hilly terrain and passing through urban stretches. For this purpose hilly or mountainous terrain would be, when the cross slope of the country is more than 25%. The urban stretches would be, passed through a town of population of 20,000 and more (Census 2011 will apply)."

¶24

From a careful reading of Clause (3), it can only be inferred that the guidelines are applicable to all fuel stations which are set up along undivided carriageway and divided carriageway sections of the State roads in plain, rolling and hilly terrain and passing through urban stretches. The 'urban stretches' in Clause 3 has been termed as a road passing through a town of population of 20,000 or more. The last line in the said clause has been added to define the 'State road along urban stretches' as mentioned in Clause (3) of the Guidelines.

¶25

Clause 1(iii) of the PWD Guidelines, further reads as under:

¶26

"These guidelines shall be applicable to all new fuel stations along roads of various categories i.e. SH/MDR/ODR/VR referred to as "State Roads" in these guidelines and mean the roads declared as notified roads under Section 3(i) of the Act or mentioned in Directory of Roads (Register of D to I) of Uttar Pradesh Public Works Department."

¶27

Clause 1, however, clarifies that the guidelines are applicable to all new fuel stations along roads of various categories, referred to as "State Roads" in the guidelines and means the roads declared as notified roads under Section 3(i) of the Act, 1945 and as mentioned in

¶28

Directory of Roads of the U.P. Public Works Department. It is, thus, evident that the State roads include all categories of roads which are notified and included in the register of the U.P. Public Works Department. It is not the case of the petitioner that the road along with which, the petrol pump-in-question is sought to be set up by respondent no.4 is not a State road, i.e. a notified road, or, mentioned in the register/directory of roads maintained by the U.P. Public Works Department.

¶29

Moreover, as per own contention of the petitioner, the petrol pump being run by him is situated along the same road at a distance of about 268m. No objection as such can be taken by the petitioner to the advertisement dated 25.11.2018 for establishment of the petrol public at the site-in-question, being in contravention of Clause 3 of the Guidelines.

¶30

As far as the distance of the location-in-question is concerned, letter dated 02.06.2020 states that the distance of the location-in-question is 300m from the BPCL petrol pump run by the petitioner. Nothing contrary could be brought before us.

¶31

With regard to the third objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the nature of the plot offered by respondent no.4 being public utility land, we may note that the Khatauni & Khasra of the plot-in-question have not been brought on record. The document appended at page no.'82' of the paper book is CH Form No.45 of plot no.844. The document at page no.'83' is the entries of Gata

¶32

no.844/1. Whereas from the No-objection certificate given by the S.D.M., Gunnaur, District- Sambhal (page '81' of the paper book), it appears that Gata No.844/2 M area 0.158 hectares situated in village- Gawan, Pargana Rajpura, District- Sambhal has been offered for the proposed Retail outlet. The respondent no.4 has got a lease of the said plot from one Nitin Kumar Agarwal s/o Anil Kumar Agarwal, resident of village- Gawan, whose name is recorded as a Bhumidhar with transferable rights.

¶33

Considering the above, we do not find any good ground to quash the advertisement dated 25.11.2018 or set aside the decision of the District Magistrate to grant No-objection to establish the retail outlet at the location-in-question.

¶34

The challenge is found devoid of merits. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶35

Order Date :- 9.12.2020

¶36

P Kesari

Nitin Agarwal v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Agarwal v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and 3 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

M/S Saya Buildcon Consortium Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Ram Kishori Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Haresh Chandra Agarwal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ikbal Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Zakir Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

M/S Kc India Test Laboratories LLP Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others