Writ petition by a rival Public Service Station challenging the allotment of a retail fuel outlet to Respondent No. 8. Bench held petitioner lacked locus standi as an existing operator and dismissed the petition.
The writ petition was dismissed on the grounds of lack of merit and absence of locus standi.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P.No.16809 of 2004
Date of decision : 7.5.2012
Public Service Station
....Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present : Mr.Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the petitioner.
None for respondent No.1.
Mr.Ashish Kapoor, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Mr.Jaswinder Singh, DAG, Punjab for respondents No.3 to 7.
None for respondent No.8.
MAHESH GROVER, J.
The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with a prayer that the impugned order dated 26.12.2003 (Annexure P-3) issued in favour of respondent No.8 granting him a retail outlet for distribution of petrol/diesel be quashed.
The petitioner who is having similar outlet in the vicinity has claimed that the location of the site which has been allotted to respondent No.8 is violative of the guidelines and regulations prescribed by the respondent-Corporation itself. It has been stated that
C.W.P.No.16809 of 2004 -2-
the minimum distance between the two fuel stations on each of the road should not be less than 5 Kms outside the city limits on highways. It has further been stated with reference to the regulations, in particular the one that requires prior seeking of permission of the Central Government if the forest land has been diverted for construction/widening of the road/national highway for providing access to the retail outlet. For the said purpose the relevant regulation is extracted here below :-
“If the forest land has already been diverted for construction/widening of the road/national highway by one user agency and if another user agency inters in construct approach road/culvert for petrol pumps, the user agency shall take the permission of the Central Government after obtaining a no objection certificate from the first user agency about the use of the diverted land and after giving an undertaking that they will comply with all the conditions already stipulated while diverting the forest land for widening of road.”
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that although he has raised a specific plea in this regard that the entry/access to the fuel station has been provided by violating the aforesaid regulation it has not elicited any specific reply by the respondents and, therefore, it should be taken to be an admission in this regard and consequently the allotment made in favour of respondent No.8 be quashed.
C.W.P.No.16809 of 2004 -3-
I have considered the matter in the light of the assertions and counter assertions made by respondent No.2 who has questioned the locus of the petitioner to even maintain this petition. The petitioner itself is an allottee and running a retail outlet in the vicinity.
I find that the writ petition is totally misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. The determination of the question of the location being totally in the domain of respondent No.2, the petitioner cannot question the establishment of a retail outlet on the ground that it is in the vicinity or on the ground that it has violated the guidelines or regulations (as the petitioner wishes to call them). The petitioner has no vested right to question such a location more so when his locus becomes severely suspect, keeping in view the fact that he himself is running an outlet and would thus be at an advantageous position in case such an outlet in the vicinity is not permitted to run. That apart, whether any trees were cut or not in violation of the regulations extracted above has not been sufficiently brought out in the pleadings except to say that the guidelines have been flouted. There is no material to suggest the establishment of the fact leading to such violation. In any eventuality, this would be a question of fact as to whether trees were cut or not and if they were cut whether more have been set up in the area or not as a measure of sustainable development. That apart, it is too late in the day to look into these questions when the retail outlet is functional since 2003.
C.W.P.No.16809 of 2004 -4-
For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that the writ
petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed.
7.5.2012 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE
dss
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a rival fuel station running an outlet in the vicinity has locus standi to challenge the allotment of a retail outlet to another.
Whether the petitioner established a violation of regulations regarding minimum distance or forest land diversion.
Public Service Station
Union of India
Respondent No. 2
Respondent No. 8
Mahesh Grover
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
