Dismissed

Manjir Singh v. Indo Barma Petroleum Corp. and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC7 May 2012CWP/15766/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the issuance of a no objection certificate for a petrol pump installation, claiming lack of public notice. The court rejected the claim citing falsified replies, specific advertisement contents, and the principle of futility due to nine years elapsed since allotment.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no objection certificate affirmed.

Manjir Singh Vs Indo Barma Petroleum Corp. and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

C.W.P.No.15766 of 2004

¶3

Date of decision : 7.5.2012

Manjit Singh

....Petitioner

Versus

Indo Barma Petroleum Corporation and others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

¶10

Present : Mr.Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr.Ashish Kapoor, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶12

Mr.Jaswinder Singh, DAG, Punjab for respondents No.2 to 4.

¶13

None for respondent No.5.

¶14

MAHESH GROVER, J.

¶15

The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 26.12.2003 (Annexure P-3) vide which a no objection certificate has been issued in the name of respondent No.5 regarding installation of petrol pump on Rahon Road at village Khawajke.

¶16

The solitary cause of grievance of the petitioner is that no advertisement or public notice was given regarding the outlet and the same has been given to respondent No.5 clandestinely.

¶17

C.W.P.No.15766 of 2004 -2-

¶18

In short, the challenge has been mounted solely on the ground that a public limited company has sought to distribute retail outlet without following the procedure as is envisaged under the law regarding such allotments.

¶19

Respondent No.1 on notice has filed its reply and has appended along with it a copy of the advertisement which was issued prior to the allotment being made in favour of respondent No.5. It has been stated that this advertisement was duly published in the English and Punjabi Tribune which have wide circulation in the State of Punjab where the projects are located.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner would try to offset the impact of this advertisement by saying that it is vague and does not prescribe a specific location.

¶21

On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the petition deserves to be dismissed firstly on the ground that a wrong projection was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that advertisement was not issued which has been falsified by the reply filed by respondent No.1 and the advertisement placed on record. Second submission that it is vague is also unsustainable and deserves to be rejected. Even if it is accepted that locations have not been prescribed though the advertisement prescribes the intention of respondent No.1 to allot the retail outlets in the State of Punjab and has invited applications from desirous persons who are having land strategically in the State of Punjab. There is no challenge to this advertisement. That apart, the allotment was made in favour of

¶22

C.W.P.No.15766 of 2004 -3-

¶23

respondent No.5 in the year 2003 and considering the fact that 9 years have elapsed since then and the respondent No.5 would have now firmly entrenched himself with the business, it would be futile and unjust to accept the prayer of the petitioner.

¶24

No ground to interfere.

¶25

Dismissed.

¶26

7.5.2012 (MAHESH GROVER)

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

dss

Manjir Singh v. Indo Barma Petroleum Corp. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjir Singh v. Indo Barma Petroleum Corp. and Ors.

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

Amanpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Bharat Ram @ Bharat Lal Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Harjinder Singh Dhillon Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate

Public Service Station Vs UOI

Management Committee, National College, Bhikhi Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Surto and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.