Dismissed

M/S Ganpati Service Station v. Distt. Magistrate and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Oct 2006CR/4632/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

M/s Ganpati Service Station filed a revision petition against the dismissal of an ad-interim injunction application seeking to restrain respondents from operating a fuel filling station. The Court held that IRC Instruction 12, 1983 is directory and the No Objection Certificate was not illegal, allowing no interference.

What did the court decide?

Allowed no interference in the revisional jurisdiction and dismissed the petition in limine.

M/S Ganpati Service Station Vs Distt… — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2006)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

C.R.No.4632 of 2006

¶3

Date of decision : 10.10.2006.

¶4

M/s Ganpati Service Station, Balaha Kalan

¶5

........Petitioner

¶6

versus

¶7

District Magistrate and others

¶8

.......Respondents

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA.

¶10

Present : Mr.Arun Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

¶12

ORDER

¶13

HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral)

¶14

The plaintiff is in present revision petition aggrieved against the orders passed by the Courts below, whereby its application for adinterim injunction restraining the respondents from opening the fuel filling station, was dismissed.

¶15

The sole argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, is based on the instructions IRC 12, 1983, issued by the Ministry of Surface Transport (Roads Wing), which contemplates that clear distance between two adjacent fuel filling stations should not be less than 300 meters. Clause 4.2 contemplates that if for some reasons, two or more fuel filling stations are sited in close proximity, these should be grouped together and a parallel service road provided by way of common access to the Highway.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that Clause 4.2 is proviso to the general rule and therefore, the competent

¶17

C.R.No.4632 of 2006

¶18

[2]

¶19

authority is to record sufficient reasons as to why two adjacent fuel filling stations are permitted.

¶20

However, I am unable to accept the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Once Clause 4.2 deals with the fuel filling stations in close proximity, therefore, such clause does not lay any absolute bar for setting up of the fuel filling station. Moreover, such instructions have been found to be directory. I do not find any illegality in the no objection granted by the District Magistrate.

¶21

In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Courts below which may warrant interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction.

¶22

Dismissed in limine.

¶23

It may be clarified that any observation while deciding the application for grant of ad-interim junction, is only for the purpose of deciding such application. The learned trial Court should decided the suit on merits in accordance with law.

¶24

(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE

¶25

October 10, 2006. *mohinder

M/S Ganpati Service Station v. Distt. Magistrate and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Ganpati Service Station v. Distt. Magistrate and Ors.

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

State of Hy. Vs Santra

Jai Pal Vs Babu Ram & Ors.

Bhushan Pal Vs Mohan Lal

Kanwaljeet Singh Vs Manak Ram

Ram Kumar Vs Kamlesh Kumari

Jarnail Singh and Another Vs Rajbir Singh and Others