Dismissed

M/S Siddheshwar Nath Fuels v. Indian Oil Corporation

Chhattisgarh HC9 Jul 2024WPC/1230/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a writ petition by an existing petrol pump dealer challenging the allotment of a new dealership to a third party. The petitioner argued the new location was within 300 meters, violating Ministry guidelines. The Court held that the 300-meter restriction is waived if a common 7-meter service road is constructed, a condition met here via NOC.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as there was no merit in the contention that the allotment violated the Guidelines/Norms due to the constructed service road.

M/S Siddheshwar Nath Fuels Vs Indian Oil… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPC No. 1230 of 2024

¶5

M/s Siddheshwar Nath Fuels Through Its Proprietor, Smt. Laxmichhaya, 50 Years, W/o Mr. Santosh Jaiswal, Village-Senduras, P.O.- Gudeli, Tehsil-Sarangarh, District-Raigarh (Cg)

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Indian Oil Corporation, Through Its Regional Manager, Indian Oil Bhawan, Rajiv Gandhi Marg, (V.I.P. Road), P.O.-Ravigram, Telibandha, Raipur-492006 (C.G.)

¶9

Divisional Retail Sales Head, Indian Oil Corporation, Raipur Divisional Office, Indian Oil Bhavan, Rajiv Gandhi Marg, VIP Road, P.O.-Ravigram, Telibandha, Raipur 492006 (CG)

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through, Its Collector, District-SarangarhBilaigarh (CG)

¶11

Kaushal Prasad Patel, S/o Jagatram Patel, Aged About 56 Years Gram-Dabra, Tehsil-Baramkela, District-Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (CG)

¶12

National Highways Authority Of India, Through Its Project Director, Project Implementation Unit Raipur, District-Raipur

¶13

Union Of India, Ministry Of Road Surface Transport And Highway Through Its Secretary Transport Bhawan, 1 Sansad Marg, New Delhi110001

¶14

---- Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner	:	Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate
For Res. No.1 & 2	:	Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate
For Res. No.3/State	:	Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer
For Res. No.4	:	Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate
For Res. No.5	:	Ms. Shreya Pawan Daga, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate
For Res. No.6	:	Ms. Shweta Rai, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Advocate

¶16

-2-

¶17

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶18

Order On Board

¶19

10/07/2024

¶20

Petitioner who is existing Dealer of Retail Outlet (Petrol Pump) allotted by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) has filed this writ petition aggrieved by allotment of the dealership of retail outlet (petrol pump) in favour of respondent No.4 at the location subject matter of writ petition, seeking following reliefs:-

¶21

“ 10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the Impugned Letter of Intent dated 10/08/2023 (Annexure P/1)issued by the Respondent, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, for proposing to offer a Retail Outlet Dealership for appointment and setting-up of Petrol Pump at the concerned location in favour of Private Respondent, Kaushal Prasad Patel.

¶22

10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent State to prohibit the respondent, Indian Oil Corporation and the Private Respondent to Install new Petrol Pumps in the concerned location which falls under the operational area of the Petitioners.

¶23

10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent State to grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in favour of the petitioner as per the facts & circumstance of the present case, in the ends

¶24

-3-

¶25

of justice. ”

¶26

Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was allotted dealership of retail outlet (petrol pump) at village Senduras (Gudheli), Tehsil -Sarangarh, DistrictSarangarh- Bilaigarh by HPCL vide ‘Letter of Intent’ dated 22.11.2012. After completion of formalities and making necessary construction, the petitioner has started operation of petrol pump. Respondent No.1/IOCL has issued an advertisement inviting applications for allotment of retail outlet (petrol pump) in which respondent No.4 also participated for the subject location. As per knowledge of the petitioner, respondent No.4 offered land bearing kh. no.110/1 admeasuring 0.2630 hectares situated at PH No.43, Revenue Circle -Godam, TehsilSarangarh, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh. However, the land offered by respondent No.4 was not found to be suitable and thereafter alternate land was offered. Respondent No.4 was allotted ‘Letter of Intent’ by respondent No.1 in violation of Guidelines/Norms as provided in the Circular dated 24 th July 2013 issued by Government of India Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. As per norms, new petrol pump is not to be allotted on the National Highways road within 300 metres of the existing petrol pump. In the case at hand, respondent No.1 allotted petrol pump to respondent No.4 within 300 metres and as per the map prepared by Patwari enclosed along with writ petition as Annexure P-10, petrol pump allotted in favour of

¶27

-4-

¶28

respondent No.4 is within the distance of 218 metres which is less then 300 metres and, therefore, this is in violation of Clause 4.6 of the Guidelines/Norms for access permission to Fuel Stations, Private Properties, Rest Area Complexes and such other facilities along National Highways. The allotment of dealership of retail outlet (petrol pump) in favour of respondent No.4 be set aside.

¶29

Mr. Anand Shukla, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 submits that petitioner is having no locus standi to challenge the allotment of dealership of retail outlet (petrol pump) in favour of respondent No.4 because the petitioner is not one of the participants of the allotment proceedings initiated by respondent No.1 with respect to subject location. He next contended that submission of learned counsel for the petitioner based on Annexure P-11 i.e. Guidelines/Norms of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways is not correct. Under Clause 4.6.3, it is specifically mentioned that if two or more fuels stations are to be sited in close proximity for some reason these would be grouped together to have a common access through a service road of 7 metre width and connected to the highway through acceleration, deceleration lanes. The permission for the new fuel stations would be considered only if it is either in proximity to the existing one so that common access can be provided or the new one located at a distance of more than 1000 metres. Any objection from the existing fuel station owner against granting of access

¶30

-5-

¶31

permission from NH for the proposed new fuel station are to be overruled and access to all fuel stations in case of clustering, shall invariably be from the service road only. He submits that as per Appendix -I enclosed at page no.67 along with writ petition, Clause 2.2 provides for Location Norms on Rural stretches of National Highways. He contended that where the access for two fuel stations are at close proximity then above distance i.e. 300 metres, may be allowed provided entry/exist in both the fuel stations are provided through service road of 7 metres width having sufficient length, further additional length of such service road shall be constructed at the cost of latter fuel station owner/company seeking grant of permission for access of the facility. He submits that layout plan which is annexed along with relevant document shows location of two petrol pumps, clearly mentioning that service lane is to be constructed by IOCL and said map is also signed by official of National Highways Division. ‘NOC’ for installation for petrol pump on the subject location is also granted by the National Highways Authority. He contended that service road is to be constructed and maintained by ‘Letter of Intent Holder’. The District Magistrate has also granted statutory ‘NOC’ for commissioning of retail outlet on 15.03.2023. Respondent No.4 has already started the construction and installation of petrol pump and major portion of work has already been completed. Petitioner is only apprehending is business loss and, therefore, filed this writ petition to somehow stop

¶32

-6-

¶33

allotment, construction and installation of petrol pump at the subject location, hence, writ petition be dismissed.

¶34

Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned counsel for respondent No.4 vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that writ petition is not maintainable in its form. Petition also suffers from delay and latches. Respondent No.4 has made substantial investment and efforts towards establishing the petrol pump and cancelling the allotment of dealership of retail outlet (petrol pump) in favour of respondent No.4 would cause irreparable financial loss and disruption of business operations. Petitioner is not an aggrieved party or directly affected by the allotment of retail outlet (petrol pump) at subject location as per the terms and conditions of advertisement. Grievance of the petitioner is with respect to allotment of retail outlet (petrol pump) in contravention of the norms of the Govt. of India Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, whereas, the NHAI has already granted provisional ‘NOC’ to IOCL for construction of approach road by the officers of respondent at proposed retail outlet. Petitioner has already installed the underground tanks. National Building Material Laboratory has issued ‘Stability Certificate’ and, therefore, writ petition be dismissed. He submits that respondent No.4 has also enclosed photographs of the present status of construction of petrol pump.

¶35

-7-

¶36

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with writ petition.

¶37

Petitioner admittedly is not the participant in advertisement /notification issued by respondent No.1 for allotment of retail outlet (petrol pump) at subject location. Main grievance of the petitioner is that petitioner is an existing petrol pump of the nearby location allotted in favour of respondent No.4 by respondent No.1 and the distance between his petrol pump and the newly allotted petrol pump is less than 300 metres. As the petitioner is not a participant of the advertisement issued by respondent No.1 for allotment of retail outlet (petrol pump) at subject location, the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that initially the land offered by respondent No.4 was not approved and thereafter he offered alternate land is not available to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Court is not considering the said ground raised in the facts and circumstances and the grievance raised in this writ petition.

¶38

This Court is considering the grievance of the petitioner that newly allotted retail outlet (petrol pump) at the subject location is at less than 300 metres of existing petrol pump. Petitioner has pressed upon Guidelines/Norms for access permission to Fuel Station, Private properties, Rest area Complexes and such other facilities along National Highways. Guidelines from its heading is clear that it does not totally bar the allotment of retail outlet

¶39

-8-

¶40

(petrol pump) in close proximity within the specified distance. However, from perusal of the clauses referred by learned counsel for the respective parties, it is appearing that the Guidelines and Norms are formulated in particular the clauses which is pressed upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is, only to avoid the entry and exist of petrol pump at the short distance, as applicable in the facts of the case is 300 metres. In clause 4.6.3 it is also provided that if two or more fuel stations are to be sited in close proximity for some reasons then the service road of 7 metres width and connected to the highway through acceleration and deescalation lanes, is to be constructed. Clause 4.6.3 is extracted below for ready reference.

¶41

“4.6.3 If two or more fuel stations are to be sited in close proximity for some reasons these would be grouped together to have a common access through a service road of 7.0 m width and connected to the highway through acceleration, deceleration lanes. From these considerations, the permission for the new fuel stations would be considered only if it Is either in proximity to the existing one so that the common access can be provided or the new one located at a distance of more than 1000m. Any objection from the existing fuel station owner against granting of access permission from NH for the proposed new fuel station are to be overruled and access to all fuel stations in case of clustering, shall invariably be

¶42

-9-

¶43

from the service road only. Wherever longer service road exists which may itself act as deceleration / acceleration lane, no separate deceleration / acceleration lane is required.”

¶44

Further, the Appendix-I enclosed along with writ petition at page No.67 which is also part of Guidelines/Norms dated 26 th June 2020 for grant of permission for construction, access to newly fuel stations, Waysides amenities, connecting roads, Other Property, Rest Area Complexes & such other facilities, also provides for the Norms of Location, Layout and Access to fuel Stations along the National Highway. Clause 2.2 deals with the Location Norms of Rural stretches of National Highways. Under chart it has dealt with Acceleration/ Deceleration lane; Distance of any Intersection with any category of road and median gap; Any barrier including that of Toll Plaza and Railway level crossing; Distance from the start of approach road of Road Over Bride (ROB); Start of approach road of Grade Separator/flyover and Distance between two fuel stations. Clause 6- Distance between two fuel stations is relevant in the facts of the case and therefore it is extracted below for ready reference.

¶45

“

¶46

S.No. Items Norms applicable Distance Undivided carriage 6 between way- 300m* two fuel stations Divided Carriageway-

-10-

”

1000m*

"including deceleration and acceleration lanes

¶51

However, this restriction shall not apply in case access/ egress for all such fuel stations are provided through common service road of 7.0m width and not directly to NH. Further, access for fuel stations at closer proximity than above distance may be allowed provided entry/ exit for both the Fuel Stations are provided through service road of 7.0m width, having sufficient length; further, additional length of such service road shall be constructed at the cost of the latter fuel station owner/company seeking grant of permission for access for the facility.

¶52

In the said clause it is clearly mentioned that if the distance between the two fuel stations is less than 300 metres as in the case at hand then minimum distance/restriction as mentioned therein shall not apply in case access/egress for all such fuel stations are provided through common service road of 7 metres

¶53

-11-

¶54

width and not directly to NH and there is further provision that access for fuel stations at close proximity than above distance may be allowed provided through common service road and 7 metres width having sufficient length, further additional length of such service road shall be constructed at the cost of latter fuel station owner/company seeking grant of permission.

¶55

The map which is placed in record by respondent No.1 and respondent No.4 would show that the ‘NOC’, based on the map signed by the official of the PWD National Highway Division mentioning that 7 metres service road is to be constructed by the IOCL i.e respondent No.1, has been issued and further there is submission of learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 & 4 that NHAI has already granted ‘NOC’ based on map submitted with undertaking that the IOCl will construct 7 metres vide service road.

¶56

From the aforementioned discussion it is crystal clear that norms fixed under the guidelines which is relied upon by learned counsel for the parties is only to protect from danger of direct access and egress from petrol pump to National Highway within the short distance, and to avoid that, it also provides for solution by constructing the service road in between two fuel stations. For the aforementioned discussions, ground raised by the petitioner that allotment of the retail outlet (petrol pump) by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.4 is violative of the

¶57

-12-

¶58

clause under the Guidelines/Norms of access permission to Fuel Stations, Private Properties, Rest Area Complexes and such other facilities along National Highways and further the circular issued by the Govt. of India Ministry of Land Transport dated 26 th June 2020 is not sustainable. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner would suffer business loss if respondent No.4 is permitted to construct petrol pump within 300 metres is without any basis. No such norms or condition is brought to the notice of the Court. From the photographs enclosed along with reply by the respondents, it is clear that respondent No.4 has done substantial construction of petrol pump pursuant to ‘Letter of Intent’ issued by respondent No.1, after obtaining ‘NOC’ by the concerned department and authority.

¶59

For the foregoing discussions. I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed.

¶60

Sd/--/---/-/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶61

Praveen

M/S Siddheshwar Nath Fuels v. Indian Oil Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Siddheshwar Nath Fuels v. Indian Oil Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Javed Aalam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Md. Farooque Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Mohammad Farooque

Ashok Kenwat Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Anita Vishwakarma Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sumitra Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh