Petitioner challenged withdrawal of dealership advertisement for rural outlet located on State Highway. Court held guidelines prohibited such location. Withdrawal lawful under reserved clause without hearing as facts undisputed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 30539 of 2021 Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Respondent :- Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bheem Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Anand Tiwari
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Heard Sri Bheem Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anand Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent corporation.
The petitioner has called in question the decision of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (respondent no. 1) in withdrawing an advertisement which was issued in respect of retail outlet dealership at "Village Mirzapur, Bulandshahar to Shikarpur Road". The advertisement has been withdrawn for the reason that the advertised location was found to be situated on State Highway by the Land Evaluation Committee while evaluating the land offered by the petitioner. The communication sent to the petitioner in this regard dated 17.2.2021, impugned herein, specifically records that the retail outlet sought to be set up, was in the category of "Rural Outlet", in respect of which, there is specific bar for being set up on a State Highway.
Clause 1(ii) of the guidelines for selection of dealers for regular and rural retail dealers, specifically prohibits setting up of retail outlet falling under rural category on State/National Highways. The application submitted by the petitioner also specifically mentions that it is in respect of retail outlet under rural category. The same is also not in dispute.
Counsel for the petitioner tried to contend that in case during field evaluation, the offered land was not found suitable, he was entitled to offer some other land. He further submitted that the impugned order has been passed without any notice and
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and therefore, it is bad in law.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation, submitted that since it is not in dispute that the retail outlet in question falls under Rural Category, in respect whereof there is a specific bar under the Guidelines for it being located on highways and therefore, the Corporation was justified in cancelling the advertisement.
We find considerable force in the submission of learned counsel for the respondent Corporation, as the petitioner does not dispute that the retail outlet in question falls under the category of "Rural Retail Outlet" and consequentially, in terms of Clause 1(ii) of the Guidelines, its location could not be on highways. The petitioner has brought on record copy of the extract of advertisement published in newspaper, whereunder the Corporation has reserved with itself the right to cancel or withdraw advertisement at any stage.
As the basic facts are not in dispute and the Corporation had reserved right with it to withdraw or cancel advertisement at any stage, therefore we find no illegality in the impugned decision. In these circumstances, providing opportunity of hearing would have been an empty formality.
We find no merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed.
(Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)
Order Date :- 27.1.2022/Jaideep/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a hearing was required before withdrawal of a dealership advertisement due to non-compliance with location guidelines.
Whether the withdrawal of the advertisement was illegal in absence of an opportunity of hearing.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajesh Kumar
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited
2 Others
Manoj Kumar Gupta
Shekhar Kumar Yadav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
