Dismissed

T.N.Prakash, v. The Union of India

Madras HC27 Apr 2016WP/5398/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a petrol pump dealer, filed a writ to stop a new petrol pump opening near his outlet, claiming business loss and violation of distance guidelines. The court held the petitioner has no locus standi as the new setup is by a rival company and damages are without infringement of legal right, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; request to forbear issuing No Objection Certificate and opening new petrol pump rejected.

T.N.Prakash, Vs The Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Date : 27.04.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

¶5

W.P.No.5398 of 2016

¶6

T.N.Prakash ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs. 1. The Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi.

¶8

The General Manager, M/s.Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., No.1, Ranganathan Avenue, Anna Nagar West, Chennai-600 040.

¶9

The Territorial Manager, M/s.Bharat Petroleum Cörporation Ltd., No.35, Vaidyanathan Street, Tondiarpet, Chennai-600 081.

¶10

The District Collector, Tiruvallur District. ...Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus, to forbear the 4^th respondent from issuing No Objection Certificate for appointment of a new petrol pump at AraniPuduvayal Road, Arani, Tiruvallur District, near the petrol pump of the petitioner and consequently forbear the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents from opening any new petrol pump at Arani-Puduvayal Road, Tiruvallur District. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Deepa Nandhini For Respondents : Mr.C.G.Kumar, ACGSC-R1 Mr.K.Ethiraj-R2 and R3 Mr.P.Rajalakshmi, GA-R4

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Writ Petition has been filed, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to forbear the 4^th respondent from issuing No Objection Certificate for appointment of a new petrol pump at Arani-Puduvayal Road, Arani, Tiruvallur District, near the petrol pump of the petitioner and consequently forbear the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents from opening any new petrol pump at AraniPuduvayal Road, Tiruvallur District.

¶15

According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a HPCL Dealer on 25.2.2005 by M/s.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., and he is running petrol bunk for the past 11 years at 399/1B, S.P.Kolil Street, Puduvayal Road, Arani, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District. He invested more than Rs.40 lakhs and there are no expected sales in the above said location. While so, the Public Sector Oil Marketing Companies in India, called for dealerships all over India based upon the demand and supply and also viability of the dealership, etc. The first respondent is the authority to regulate and control over the three public sector Oil Marketing companies. There are nearly 43,000 petrol bunks all over India and above 4,300 petrol bunks in Tamil Nadu. However, the Oil companies have again called for opening of thousands of petrol bunks in Tamil Nadu, without taking into consideration the growth rate and the sales figure and future growth rate, etc., Out of this, more 1/3^rd of the locations are rural areas, where the existing dealers are struggling to meet the sales target, which puts the dealers to face irreparable loss.

¶16

It is further stated that recently a new Essar Petrol bunk was set up nearby the petrol bunk of the petitioner, within a span of 1 k.m. and apart from this, there are eight other outlets within 5 k.m. from the petitioner's outlet, which have already reduced his sales valume and thereby, the petitioner is unable to reap the fruits of his investment. While so, according to the petitioner, he reliably learnt that the third respondent company is planning to appoint a new outlet very close to his outlet within a short distance of 400 mts., contrary to the guidelines framed by the Indian Roads Congress, where it is a divided carriageway, with no gap in medians, the minimum distance between two fuel outlets on the same side ought to be at least 1000 mts. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner is that if the third respondent company permits a new outlet very close to his outlet, his business interest would be adversely affected. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.

¶17

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner made his submissions, reiterating the contentions in the affidavit. The sub and substance of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the third respondent is proposing to open a new outlet nearby to the retail outlet of the petitioner, by which his business interest would be adversely affected. In fact, the Oil Companies are imposing stringent conditions on the dealers and if they fail to meet the sales target, it would result in termination of the dealership. Therefore, if the Petroleum Corporations issue notifications indiscriminately calling for dealerships, it would create only pressure on the dealers like the petitioner and the dealers have to run the business with so much of pressure with a speculation to show a huge volume of sales. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought for a direction, to forbear the 4^th respondent from issuing No Objection Certificate for appointment of a new petrol pump at Arani-Puduvayal Road, Arani, Tiruvallur District, near the petrol pump of the petitioner and consequently forbear the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents from opening any new petrol pump at Arani-Puduvayal Road, Tiruvallur District.

¶20

6.Per contra, the learned Addl.Central Government Standing counsel appearing for the first respondent, by filing a detailed counter, submitted that after dismantling of the administered pricing mechanism (APM) in the petroleum sector with effect from 1.4.2002, the selection process of dealers/distributors for retail outlets/LPG distributorship, is done by the oil marketing companies themselves subject to broad policy guidelines issued by Ministry from time to time relating to matters, like reservation for weaker section, reconstitution, revival of defunct outlets, re-sitement and transparency in selection. The public sector oil companies enjoy commercial freedom in the matter of marking/distribution of petroleum products, through their respective networks of retail outlet dealerships, LPG distributorship and SKO-LDO dealerships. The oil companies choose their own locations for setting up such dealerships/distributorship, if found viable after feasibility study thereof by the oil companies themselves. The Government has no role in the selection of sites. Therefore, the writ petition filed against the first respondent is without merit and hence, the learned Addl.Central Government Standing counsel sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶21

7.The Learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents would submit that the petitioner is a rival trader of the 2^nd respondent-corporation and the rival trader is not an aggrieved person, by the entry of a new competitor in the market. The learned counsel for the respondents has also relied upon number of judgments to show that the writ petition is not maintainable.

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

8.In this regard, it would be appropriate to place reliance in the judgment reported in 2005 (1) CTC 394 [ Nataraja Agencies Vs. The Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas], wherein it has been held as follows

¶24

“4.In the present case, the only grievance of the appellant is that if the fourth respondent is permitted to set up her retail outlet within one kilometer radius of the appellant's outlet, his business interest would be adversely affected. In our opinion, the appellant has no locus standi at all to complain against the setting up of a rival retail outlet by the fourth respondent, near his place of business, on the ground that would affect his business interest, inasmuch as the damage, if any, suffered thereby was damnum sine injuria-damage without infringement of legal right. In our opinion, this will only result in promoting competition among the traders, which is good for the consumers. Merely because some of the customers may switch over the rival retail outlet does not mean that public interest will suffer rather, in our opinion, it will benefit the consumers because, when there is competition, the businessmen are compelled to provide better quality products at reasonable rates.”

¶25

The dictum laid down in the above said judgment is squarely applicable to the present facts of the case. In the light of the above said judgment, I find that the petitioner herein has no locus standi to complain against the setting up of retail outlet by others near the petitioner's retail outlet. Moreover, the petitioner is retail outlet dealer of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation. Whereas, the impugned notification has been issued by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation. As a rival trader, the petitioner is not entitled to seek direction from the Court to forbear the other traders from establishing their outlet. Considering the present need of the petroleum dealers for the growing vehicle transportation, establishing more retail outlets cannot be denied. On this ground also the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶27

For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶28

suk

¶29

Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Secretary,
Union of India,
Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas,
New Delhi.
2. The General Manager,
M/s.Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
No.1, Ranganathan Avenue,
Anna Nagar West,
Chennai-600 040.
3. The Territorial Manager,
M/s.Bharat Petroleum Cörporation Ltd.,
No.35, Vaidyanathan Street,
Tondiarpet, Chennai-600 081.
4. The District Collector,
Tiruvallur District.
+ 1 cc to Mrs.C.Deepa Nandhini, Advocate SR 27219
+ 1 cc to Mr.K.Ethiraj, Advocate SR 27220
+ 1 cc to Mr.C.G.Kumar, Advocate SR 26980
gj(co)
prk13/6 W.P.No.5398 of 2016

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

T.N.Prakash, v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.N.Prakash, v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J.Myvanna Kumar, Vs The Commissioner

Mr. Tulukanam Naicker Vs The Sub Registrar

Mr. P. Usha Vs Protector General of Emigrants

Vinkem Labs Ltd., Vs Bank of India

Mr.R.v.Deenadayalan, Vs The Sub Registrar

Avichi College of Arts & Vs The Secretary to Government