Dismissed

Chetan Kumar Todawata v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC28 Nov 2018CW/8087/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by the owner of an existing petrol pump on a State Highway challenging the land conversion, No Objection Certificate and permission granted to a private respondent to set up a competing petroleum outlet within 300 metres. The court upheld the permissions, holding that the clustering and common-service-road provisions of the State PWD norms and Indian Roads Congress guidelines were co

What the court decided

AI extract

Chetan Kumar Todawata Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Rajasthan HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶2

BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writs No. 8087/2018

¶4

Chetan Kumar Todawata S/o Sh. Hanuman Prasad Todawata, aged about 30, Jaton Ka Mohalla, Village Sitarampura, TeshilDudu, Distt. Jaipur, proprietor Todawata Filling Station, at Gram Panchayat Bichoon.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Secretary, Deptt. of Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

The District Collector, District Jaipur, Collectorate Circle, Banipark, Jaipur.

¶9

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dudu, Tehsil Dudu, District, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶10

The Dy. Superintendent Of Police, Sambherlake, Distt. Jaipur.

¶11

The Executive Engineer, Pwd Division-Dudu, Distt. Jaipur.

¶12

The Chief Conservator Of Forest, Distt. Jaipur Rajasthan. 7. The Tehsildar Land Records, Tehsil Mojmabad, Distt. Jaipur.

¶13

The Dy. Chief Controller Of Explosives, Nc, Faridabad U.p. 9. The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bichoon, Tehsil Mojmabad, Panchayat Samiti Dudu, Jaipur.

¶14

The Reliance Petroleum Limited Through Its Regional Office At Plot No. 12-13, Rathore Nagar, Queens Road, Jaipur.

¶15

Shri Ankush Jain Son Of Shri Dilip Kumar Badjatya, By Caste Jain, Resident Of Daandeep, 3A-3B, Gopalbari, Ajmer Puliya, Jaipur.

¶16

----Respondents

¶17

For Petitioner(s)	: Shri Ka Advocate Advocate.	mlakar assisted	Sharm by Mr.	a, Senior P.C.Sharma,
For Respondent(s)	: Ms.Suruchi	Kasl	iwal,	Advocate,
	Mr.Rajan	Prajapat	ic Ad	vocate on
	behalf of	Mr.D.V.	Tholia,	Additional
	Advocate	General	for	respondent

¶18

(2 of 23)

¶19

[CW-8087/2018]

¶20

Nos.1 to 4, 7 & 9, Mr.Rishabh Khandelwal Advocate, Mr.Shivraj Singh, Advocate on behalf of respondent No.6 and Dr.A.S.Khangarot, Addl. Government Counsel on behalf of the respondent No.5-PWD.

¶21

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

¶22

Judgment

¶23

REPORTABLE

¶24

Judgment reserved on : 31th October, 2018.

¶25

Date of Judgment : 28^th November, 2018. By the Court:-

¶26

The present petitioner who owns a petrol pump at village Bichoon, Tehsil Mojamabad, District Jaipur has filed the instant petition with the following prayers:-

¶27

“It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the entire record of the courts below may kindly be called for and after perusing the same, respondents lordship may kindly accept and allowed this writ petition and further:-

¶28

i. By appropriate writ, order or directions, respondents lordship may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 14.8.2017 passed by the District Collector Jaipur based on the false report as the same is directly contrary to the judgment of this Hon’ble court passed in the case of Dalpat Singh.

¶29

ii. By appropriate writ, order or directions, your lordship may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the No Objection Certificate issued by the Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Bichoon on 12.10.2017 in respect of the land of respondent No.11 for installing of petrol pump contrary to the guidelines and judgement of this Hon’ble Court.

¶30

iii. By appropriate writ, order or directions, your lordship may kindly be pleased to restrain the respondents not to grant any no objection certificate in favour of respondents No.11 for the purpose of installing petrol pump just adjacent to the petitioner’s land.

¶31

Any other appropriate order which this Hon’ble Court deem fit and suitable for the benefit of the petitioner may kindly be

¶32

(3 of 23)

¶33

[CW-8087/2018]

¶34

passed and cost of the Writ petition may also be allowed in favour of the petitioner.”

¶35

The petitioner feels aggrieved due to establishment and installation of new petrol pump adjacent to the land of the petitioner.

¶36

The brief facts as pleaded in the writ petition are that the petitioner after getting due permission of conversion of land bearing Khasra No.1585/1098 in village Bichoon, Tehsil Mojamabad, District Jaipur has set up a petrol pump, awarded to him by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter shall be referred to as “the HPCL”). The petitioner has alleged in the petition that before establishing the petrol pump, he got No Objection Certificate from different authorities and his land was converted for commercial purpose. He also obtained No Objection Certificate from Public Works Department as well. The HPCL after considering all the compliances of the relevant laws, executed license in favour of the petitioner to run petrol pump on the land/property abutting on the State Highway No.57 (NH8/MOKHAMPURA to BICHOON).

¶37

The petitioner has alleged in his petition that he was running his petrol pump smoothly, however, he learnt that the respondent No.11 (private respondent) has purchased the land adjacent to the petrol pump of the petitioner for the purpose of installing Reliance Petrol Pump and he started the work on the said land for the purpose of establishing a petrol pump.

¶38

(4 of 23)

¶39

[CW-8087/2018]

¶40

The petitioner has pleaded that the respondent No.11 had applied for retail outlet/petrol pump of Reliance Company and he submitted an application in this regard and the respondent No.10 Reliance Company Limited, proceeded to grant permission/license to run the petrol pump and further asked to fulfill the criteria and norms prescribed.

¶41

The petitioner has pleaded that the respondent No.11 applied for conversion of land for commercial purpose and khasra No.1110 measuring 0.3320 Hectare situated at village Bichoon, Tehsil Mojamabad, District Jaipur has been converted for commercial purpose i.e. for use of petrol pump. The petitioner has pleaded that conversion of land by Tehsildar Mojambad is contrary to the directions issued by the High Court and also against the circular issued by the State Government.

¶42

The petitioner has pleaded that while undertaking the exercise of conversion of land of the respondent No.11, the SDO, Dudu submitted a false report to the District Collector and he was required to inform that there was already a petrol pump within the area of 300 meters.

¶43

The petitioner has pleaded on the basis of the false report of SDO, Dudu, the District Collector, Jaipur passed the order of conversion of land for commercial purpose in favour of the respondent No.11 vide order dated 14.08.2017.

¶44

The petitioner has pleaded that the District Collector before taking any action on the application of the respondent No.11, was required to ensure the compliance of norms and conditions

¶45

(5 of 23) [CW-8087/2018]

¶46

prescribed in the notification issued by the State Government, as mentioned in the judgment of the High Court. The petitioner has pleaded that it is a mandatory condition for installation of new petrol pump/retail outlet that there must be a distance of 300 meters (clear) from the existing retail outlet and as such this condition has been totally violated by the Tehsildar while issuing the land conversion certificate in favour of the respondent No.11.

¶47

The petitioner has pleaded that in the permission for installation of new retail outlet, the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Bichoon has mentioned in the No Objection Certificate dated 12.10.2017 that the proposed outlet is falling under the norms prescribed by the High Court whereas in the same NOC, the Sarpanch noted that the new outlet is within 300 meters from the other petrol pump. It is pleaded that para-7 of the NOC issued by the Sarpanch Gram Panchayat was contrary to para-9 of the same NOC, as the proposed petrol pump is located in the distance less than 300 meters.

¶48

The petitioner has pleaded that the distance between petrol pump of the petitioner and the proposed retail outlet of the respondent No.11 is less than 300 meters and only a distance of single wall is there in between and it is not more than one meter. The petitioner, therefore, has alleged that there is a violation of the order of the High Court and circular issued by the Government.

¶49

The petitioner has pleaded that the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways has framed a policy for installing fuel

¶50

(6 of 23) [CW-8087/2018]

¶51

stations vide policy dated 25.09.2003 and the minimum distance between two petrol pumps, mentioned in para-10 of the said policy, must be 300 meters (clear).

¶52

The petitioner has pleaded that the High Court in the judgment passed in Dalpat Singh Vs. Union of India and Others reported in 2005(4) WLC (Raj.) 378 has laid down that the norms as laid down by the Government in its policy for establishing petrol pumps, must be followed.

¶53

The petitioner has pleaded that he learnt about establishment of petrol pump by the respondent No.11 when a “No Objection Certificate” was issued in his favour, then he made request to the authorities asking them to stop establishment of petrol pump adjacent to the petrol pump of the petitioner. The petitioner is said to have served a legal notice on the respondents before approaching this court. It is the assertion of the petitioner that no response was given by the respondents to the legal notice and the No Objection Certificate, which was illegally granted by the respondents, was not withdrawn by the respondents and as such he had no option except to approach this court.

¶54

The petitioner in his petition has raised following legal grounds to challenge the impugned action of the respondents:-

¶55

(i) The installation of new petrol pump adjacent to the existing petrol pump of the petitioner is neither permissible nor justified in view of the safety regulations.

¶56

(ii) The norms and guidelines which have been issued for installing the new petrol pump have been violated and the

¶57

(7 of 23)

¶58

[CW-8087/2018]

¶59

authorities should not have indulged themselves in issuing NOC by overlooking the norms so prescribed in this regard.

¶60

(iii) The High Court in the case of Dalpat Singh (supra) has directed the respondent-State authorities to follow the norms for installing the new retail outlet and granting of NOC is in gross violation of the directions issued by the High Court.

¶61

(iv) The establishment of a petrol pump will result in an area becoming accident zone at the State Highway No.57.

¶62

(v) The conversion of land of the respondent No.11 is based on a false report and the respondents have not followed their own circulars.

¶63

Mr.Kamlakar Sharma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.P.C.Sharma has submitted that at a single carriageway the minimum distance of two retail outlets/petrol pumps has to be 300 meters and by issuing No Objection Certificate in favour of the private respondent, the same requirement has not been kept in mind.

¶64

Counsel has further argued that the Indian Road Congress has issued guidelines for access, location and layout of roadside fuel stations and service stations and as per Clauses (4.5.3) and (4.6.1), in non-urban (rural) areas, the minimum distance between two fuel stations would be 300 meters (including deceleration and acceleration lanes) on undivided carriageway.

¶65

Counsel has argued that this court in the case of Dalpat Singh (supra) has laid down the law that the guidelines framed by

¶66

(8 of 23)

¶67

[CW-8087/2018]

¶68

the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways and Revenue Department and Public Works Department, are required to be strictly followed.

¶69

Counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Arti Devi Dangi & Anr. reported in 2016 (15) SCC 480 wherein the Apex Court has held that the fulfillment of the requirements spelt out by the Indian Roads Congress, are mandatory requirement to be considered.

¶70

The respondent Nos.2, 3 & 7 i.e. the District Collector, Jaipur, the Sub Divisional Officer, Dudu and the Tehsildar, Mojamabad respectively have filed a joint reply to the writ petition. The respondents have submitted in their reply that the respondent No.11-private respondent had applied for conversion of Kharsa No.1110 for commercial purpose i.e. petrol pump and in pursuance of the application, the Tehsildar (Land Records) wrote a letter dated 12.01.2017 and the SDO, Dudu wrote a letter with regard to the check list of the documents vide letter No.33 dated 24.01.2017. It was stated in the check list that there was no other petrol pump operating within 300 meters distance. A copy of the letter No.33 dated 24.01.2017 has been annexed with the reply as Annexure-R/1.

¶71

The respondents have submitted that as far as petitioner’s establishment of petrol pump is concerned, the check list of the documents relating to the petitioner was sent for necessary action on 27.01.2017, a copy whereof has been annexed with the reply

¶72

(9 of 23)

¶73

[CW-8087/2018]

¶74

as Annexure-R/2 and correct position was given in respect of the petitioner. It has been submitted that at the time of application, made by the respondent No.11, there was no petrol pump which was operating within the periphery of 300 meters and no land was converted for the same. The respondents have reiterated that no false report was submitted by any of the officers and correct information was furnished to the competent authorities.

¶75

The respondents have placed on record a circular dated 28.04.2016 as Annexure-R/3 issued by the State Government which defines the definition of ‘Petro Chemical’, as mentioned in the Conversion Rules, 2007, which do not cover the petrol pumps and as such the petrol pumps can be established at the distance less than 300 meters to another petrol pump. The respondents have justified the grant of No Objection Certificate and they have alleged that no Rules and Regulations have been violated.

¶76

The respondent No.5-Executive Engineer, PWD, Jaipur has filed separate reply to the writ petition. The respondent has pleaded that as per the Public Works Department, the competent authority may give relaxation as per the norms issued by the Chief Engineer (Roads) vide letter dated 27.12.2014 in respect of petrol pumps along the State Highways/MDR’s/ODR’s. The copy of the norms has been filed as Annexure-R.2. It has been submitted that the respondents have followed the norms and guidelines and the petitioner has misinterpreted the judgment passed by this court in the case of Dalpat Singh (supra).

¶77

(10 of 23) [CW-8087/2018]

¶78

The respondent No.10-Reliance Industries Limited has filed reply to the writ petition and it has been submitted that the Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways has issued revised guidelines/norms for access permission to fuel stations along the National Highways vide policy dated 24.07.2013 and as per the revised guidelines para 4.6.3 of the norms for location layout and access to fuel station along the National Highways, it is provided that 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 meter width and connected to the Highway through acceleration and deceleration lanes and any objection from the existing fuel station owner for granting of access permission from National Highway for the proposed new fuel station is to be overruled and access to all fuel stations, in case of clustering, shall invariably be from the service road only.

¶79

The respondent has further pleaded that objection of the petitioner of non-fulfillment of 300 meters requirement is not tenable in view of Clause (4.4.3) of the norms for Access for Fuel Stations, Service Stations and rest areas along State Highways/MDR’s/ODR’s dated 27.12.2004 issued by the Public Works Department.

¶80

The respondent has reiterated that 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 meter width and connected to the Highway through acceleration and deceleration lanes. It is reiterated that as per

¶81

(11 of 23)

¶82

[CW-8087/2018]

¶83

State PWD Norms, 2004, there is no absolute prohibition on setting up two or more retail outlets in close proximity and the requirement is that the said two retail outlets shall be grouped together for a common access through a service road of 7.0 meters.

¶84

The respondents have submitted that the writ petition is founded on business rivalry and the petitioner wants to exclude business competitor and as such the writ petition cannot be said to be maintainable before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶85

The respondent No.11-private respondent has filed reply to the writ petition and preliminary objections have been raised about maintainability of the writ petition as the petition is termed as vexatious, misdirected and a misuse of the salutary process of the High Court and no legal or fundamental right of the petitioner is alleged to be infringed. The respondent has averred in his reply that the petitioner has not come out with clean hands as he has not disclosed the fact of circular dated 27.12.2004 containing Clause (4.4.3) and on merits of the case, the respondent has alleged that No Objection Certificate has rightly been granted by the State authorities as there has been no violation of norms for location of layout and access to fuel station along the State Highways.

¶86

The counsel for the respondents have argued that the petitioner does not have any legal right to question the issuance of No Objection Certificate and establishment of petrol pump. The

¶87

(12 of 23) [CW-8087/2018]

¶88

counsel have submitted that the norms for setting up of a petrol pump on National Highway is different. Counsel submitted that Public Works Department has ample powers for clustering/clubbing two or more petrol pumps and the only requirement is of maintaining of a common service road and the same has been followed in the instant case.

¶89

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, perused the material available on record.

¶90

This court finds from the pleadings of the parties that the petrol pump in question is sought to be located on a State Highway. This court further finds that even the petitioner has claimed his own petrol pump to be established at village Bichoon, Tehsil Mojamabad, District Jaipur in khasra No.1110 measuring 0.3320 Hectare on a State Highway.

¶91

This court is primarily concerned with the decision of the respondents with regard to the grant of No Objection Certificate for a petrol pump to be set up by the respondent No.11 and further to see whether the norms, as laid down by the different authorities, have been followed or not.

¶92

It would be appropriate to quote the guidelines issued by the Government of Rajasthan, PWD, dated 27.12.2004, which read as follows:-

¶93

“GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT JACOB ROAD JAIPUR

¶94

NO.F104/PSM-II/NOC/04/543

Dated:27/12/2004

To,

(13 of 23)

[CW-8087/2018]

District Collectors (ALL), Distt…………

¶100

Addl.Chief Engineer (ALL), PWD, Zone……………

¶101

Superintending Engineer (All), PWD, Circle…………………

¶102

Executive Engineer (All), PWD, Division………………

¶103

Sub: Norms for the Access for fuel Stations, Service Stations and Rest Areas along State Highways/MDR’s/ODR’s

¶104

Sir,

¶105

to 4. XX XX XX

¶106

The norms are enclosed at Appendix-I which shall be followed for seeking and granting permission for the access to the new fuel stations. It shall be the responsibility of the oil company/ owner to ensure that the proposed location and other features of fuel stations are in conformity with these norms. Otherwise the proposal would be rejected.

¶107

The cases for granting permission for access to new fuel stations, service stations and rest areas along State Highways/MDR’s/ODR’s shall, henceforth be dealt with in accordance with the norms prescribed in Appendix I to this circular. The main features of the norms are listed below.

¶108

6.1 For the siting of fuel stations along State Highways/MDR’s/ODR’s, its minimum distance from an intersection would be:

¶109

6.1.1 Non-Urban (Rural) Stretches.

¶110

Plain and Rolling Terrain Intersection with NHs/SHS/MDRs/ODRs 500m i) Intersection with Rural roads with carriageway width of 3.5m or more 300m ii) Intersection with Rural roads and all other earth tracks with carriageway width less than 3.5m 100m 2. Hilly/Mountainous Terrain i) Intersection with NHs/SHs/MDRs/ODRs 300m ii) Intersection with all other roads and tracks 100m

¶111

6.2 The minimum distance between two fuel stations along the State Highways/MDR’s/ODR’s would be as given below:

¶112

6.2.1 Plain and Rolling Terrain in Non-urban (Rural) Areas (i) Undivided carriageway (for both sides of carriageway) 300m

¶113

(14 of 23)

¶114

[CW-8087/2018]

¶115

(including deceleration and acceleration lanes) (ii) Divided carriageway (with no gap in median at this location and stretch) 500m (including deceleration and acceleration lanes).

¶116

(Enclosure to) Annexure-I

¶117

NORMS FOR LOCATION, LAYOUT AND ACCESS TO FUEL STATIONS ALONG STATE HIGHWAYS/MDR’S/ODR’S

¶118

These norms have been finalized in substantial modification of IRC1201983 Recommended Practice for Location and Layout of Road Side Motor Fuel Filling cumService Station’ for Systems Improvement for Installation of Petrol/Diesel/Gas Retail Outlets and service stations as well as access to Private Properties along State Highways/MDR’s/ODR’s. These norms shall be applicable to all new fuel stations/old fuel stations do not have NOC from the competent authority of PWD with effect from the date of issue of this circular.

¶119

& 3. XX XX XX

¶120

4. General Conditions of Siting

¶121

4.1 The fuel stations would be located where the highway alignment and profile are favourable i.e. where the grounds are practically level, there are no sharp curves (having radius of less than 230m in plains and 60m in hilly terrain) or steep grades (more than 5%) and where the sight distances would be adequate for safe traffic operations. The location would not interfere with placement and proper functioning of highway signs, signals, lighting or other devices that affect traffic operation.

¶122

4.2 While considering the proposal for new fuel stations, it would be ensured that the fuel stations on a corridor are well distributed on both sides of the highways so that vehicles normally do not have to cut across the traffic to reach them. The fuel stations would be serving only the traffic moving on the adjacent lane. For the vehicles traveling in the lanes in opposite direction, separate fuel stations need to be planned for which permission would be considered keeping also in view of its location and distance norms.

¶123

4.3 In order to provide safe length for weaving of traffic, fuel station along State Highways/MDR’s/ODR’s shall be located at the minimum distance from an intersection (gap in the central median be treated as intersection), as given below. For single carriageway section, these minimum distances would be applicable for both sides.

¶124

4.3.1 Non-Urban (Rural) Stretches.

¶125

(15 of 23)

¶126

[CW-8087/2018]

¶127

1. Plain and Rolling Terrain

¶128

(i) Intersection with NHs/SHs/MDRs/ODRs 1000m

¶129

(ii) Intersection with Rural Roads with Carriageway width of 3.5m or more. 300m

¶130

(iii) Intersection with Rural Roads and all other earth tracks with carriageway width less than 3.5m. 100M

¶131

4.4 The minimum distance between two fuel stations along the National Highway would be as given below:

¶132

4.4.1 Plain and Rolling Terrain in Non-urban (Rural) Areas (i) Undivided carriageway (for both sides of carriageway).

¶133

300m

¶134

(including deceleration and acceleration lanes).

¶135

(ii) Divided carriageway (with no gap in median at this location and stretch) 1000m (including deceleration and acceleration lanes).

¶136

4.4.2 XX XX XX

¶137

4.4.3 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 7.0mt 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 the distance of more than 500m.

¶138

4.4.4 For installation of new fuel station within the 500m distance of existing fuel station in plain/rolling terrain and 300m in hilly/mountains terrain and urban stretch, new entrant would be responsible for construction and maintenance of the common service road deceleration & acceleration lanes, drainge and traffic control devices. In case of hilly/ mountainous terrain, common service roads at all such locations may not be possible as per the site conditions and therefore common access through service roads would not be a pre-condition.”

¶139

It would be appropriate to quote the relevant clauses of the Guidelines for Access, Location and Layout of Roadside Fuel Stations and Service Stations (third revision) issued by the Indian Roads Congress, which read as follows:-

¶140

“GUIDELINES FOR ACCESS, LOCATION AND LAYOUT OF ROADSIDE FUEL STATIONS AND SERVICE STATIONS (THIRD REVISION)

(16 of 23)

[CW-8087/2018]

1. INTRODUCTION

XX XX XX

2. BASIC PRINCIPLES

¶146

XX XX XX

¶147

3. SCOPE

¶148

3.1 Petrol/Diesel/Gas fuel stations and service stations with or without Rest Area Amenities etc. are hereinafter referred to as Fuel Stations.

¶149

3.2 These norms are applicable to all Fuel Stations with or without other user facilities of rest areas, along un-divided carriageway and divided carriageway sections of all categories of roads i.e. National Highways, State highways, Major District Roads and Rural roads in plain, rolling and hilly terrain, and passing through rural and urban stretches including towns and cities. For this purpose hilly or mountainous terrain would be, when the cross slope of the country is more than 25%. The urban stretches, only for the purpose of this guidelines, would be, where a highway passes through towns or cities which have been notified as Municipalities or Municipal Corporations.

¶150

4. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF SITING

¶151

4.1 to 4.4 XX XX XX

¶152

4.5 In order to provide safe length for weaving of traffic, fuel stations along highways/roads shall be located at the minimum distance from an intersection (gap in the central median be treated as intersection), as given below. For single carriageway section, these minimum distances would be applicable for both sides. All the distances shall be measured between the tangent points of the curves of the side roads at intersections/the median openings and the access/egress roads of the fuel stations, as is applicable, in a direction parallel to the centre line of the nearest carriageway of the highway.

¶153

The above mentioned distances are applicable for setting up of fuel stations along National Highways, State Highways and Major District Roads. In case of fuel stations along the Rural Roads in plain and rolling terrain, the distance from the intersection with NHs/SHs/MDRs can be reduced to 300 m in place of 1000 m depending on the level of traffic.

¶154

4.5.1Non-urban (Rural) stretches 1) Plain and Rolling Terrain (i) Intersection with NHs/SHs/MDRs/City Roads 1000 m (ii) Intersection with Rural Roads/approach roads to private and public properties 300 m

¶155

(17 of 23)

¶156

[CW-8087/2018]

¶157

4.5.3 There shall not be any median gap on a divided carriageway within a distance of 300m on each side of the fuel station. This minimum distance i.e. 300m shall be measured between the start of the median gap and the nearest tangent point of the access/egress road of the fuel station, as is applicable, in a direction parallel to the centre line of the nearest carriageway of the highway. This stipulation shall be applicable for such median gaps, which are located neither in front of nor in proximity of any intersection or intersecting roads. For intersecting road median gaps or median gaps in proximity of intersections, the provisions stipulated under para 4.5. 1 and para 4.5.2 shall apply.

¶158

4.6 The minimum distance between two fuel stations would be as given below :

¶159

4.6.1 Plain and rolling terrain in non-urban (rural) areas (i) Undivided carriageway (for both sides of 300 m carriageway) (including deceleration and acceleration lanes). (ii) Divided carriageway (with no gap in median 1000 m at this location and stretch) (including deceleration and acceleration lanes).

¶160

Note: (i) The minimum distance of 300 m between two fuel stations on both sides of the road is applicable for undivided carriageway only. In case of divided carriageway, with no gap in medians, the distance restriction is not applicable on the opposite side of the fuel station and the minimum distance between two fuel stations on the same side shall be 1000 m.

¶161

(ii) The distance between the fuel stations shall be measured between the tangent points of the access/egress roads of the fuel stations, as is applicable, in a direction parallel to the centre line of the nearest carriageway of the highway.

¶162

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 distance of more than 1000 m. Any objection from the existing fuel station owner against granting of access permission from the highway 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.

¶163

4.6.4 For installation of new fuel station within the 1000 m or 300 m distance of existing fuel station as the case may be, new entrant would be responsible for construction and

¶164

(18 of 23)

¶165

[CW-8087/2018]

¶166

maintenance of the common service road, deceleration and acceleration lanes, drainage and traffic control devices. Wherever, available ROW is inadequate to accommodate such service roads, deceleration/acceleration lanes, etc. the additional land by the side of ROW to accommodate such service roads shall also be acquired by the new entrant Oil Company. In case of hilly/mountainous terrain, common service roads at all such locations may not be possible as per the site conditions and, therefore, common access through service roads would not be a pre-condition.”

¶167

This court finds that the Government of Rajasthan, Public Works Department has issued norms dated 27.12.2004 for location, layout and access to fuel stations along State Highways and as per clause (4.3) in non-urban (rural) stretches in respect of intersection with rural road with carriage ways width of 3.5 meter or more, the distance is prescribed 300 meters between the existing petrol pump and new petrol pump to be established. Clause (4.4.3) of the said norms provide that 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 meters width and connected to the highway through acceleration & deceleration lanes only. From these considerations, the permission for the new fuel stations would be considered only if it is either in proximity of the existing one so that the common access can be provided.

¶168

This court finds that various correspondences have been placed on record along with the additional affidavit filed by the respondent No.11 whereby as per the relaxation under Clauses (4.4.3) and (4.4.4), No Objection Certificate was required to be given to the private respondent. The letter dated 31.03.2018 was written by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Dudu informing the SDO, Dudu that both the petrol pumps can be clubbed together and 7.0

¶169

(19 of 23) [CW-8087/2018]

¶170

meters road can be provided, as per the norms prescribed by the Public Works Department. The Executive Engineer has also written to the Superintendent Engineer, PWD, Jaipur for issuing No Objection Certificate as per the norms provided by the State Government which clearly permit establishment of petrol pump and clustering of fuel stations, as per the circular dated 27.12.2014 having common access for both new and old petrol pump. The letter dated 22.05.2018 (Annexure R-11/10) filed with the additional affidavit, issued from office of the Executive Engineer, PWD, Dudu, makes a mention of clubbing and clustering of fuel stations and further arrangement of land for common access was made by the owner of new petrol pump.

¶171

This court finds that the respondents have not committed any illegality while issuing No Objection Certificate and the policy of the State Government has been kept in mind while permitting the establishment of new petrol pump of the private respondent.

¶172

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that under Clause (4.4) of the norms dated 27.12.2004, maintaining a minimum distance of 300 meters on undivided carriageway is compulsory as two fuel stations along the Highway will have to be at a distance of 300 meters, this court finds that the norms have been issued for location of fuel station along the State Highways/MDR’s/ODR’s and as such it cannot be inferred that fuel station is along the National Highway and as such there is a violation of the said norms while granting permission/No Objection Certificate.

¶173

(20 of 23) [CW-8087/2018]

¶174

This court finds that Clauses (4.4.3) and (4.4.4) permit establishment of petrol pumps in close proximity and the requirement of maintaining service road is the only condition, which should have access to both the petrol pumps.

¶175

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that guidelines issued by the Indian Roads Congress have not been followed, this Court finds that even Clause (4.6.3) permits clustering or grouping of different petrol pumps to have a common access through a service road of 7.0 meters width and even the objection from the existing fuel station owner is required to be overruled. This court does not find that there has been any violation of guidelines issued by the Indian Roads Congress.

¶176

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that there is a violation of directions given by this court in the case of Dalpat Singh (supra), a perusal of the said judgment reveals that the coordinate Bench of this court observed that different oil companies issued guidelines for selection of retail outlets but they had no coordination with each other and as such the guidelines were issued by the Government of India for keeping distance between one retail outlet and another retail outlet. The court directed the different Companies to follow strict compliance of the guidelines framed by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Union of India, Revenue Department and Public Works Department, Local Self Government, Municipal Corporation, Food & Civil Supplies Department, Jaipur Development Authority, UIT and other department of the Government of Rajasthan. The

¶177

(21 of 23)

¶178

[CW-8087/2018]

¶179

relevant portion of the order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court is reproduced hereunder:-

¶180

“20. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. also issued guidelines for selection of retail outlet and more or less similar guidelines are published by every oil companies but it appears that companies have no co-ordination with each other therefore, certain guidelines issued by the Govt. of India have been violated mainly with regard to keeping distance from one outlet to another and it is also found that without obtaining no objection certificate by the licensing authority they start laying and construction petrol pump in violation of the policy of Govt. of India.

¶181

The minimum distance between the two outlet is one kilo meter but it is observed that different companies are installing their petrol pump in cluster which as per the policy cluster of petrol pump should clearly be avoided and this only because different companies have no co-ordination and no control over the different companies. Save for example if the Hindustan Petroleum allot a retail outlet after following the norms prescribed by the Govt. of India and RO will be allotted at a distance of one kilometer but the Indian Oil Corporation will set up RO nearby the RO set up by the Hindustan Petroleum or by Reliance or Bharat Petroleum, I.B.P., ESSAR and other Oil Companies. For that purpose all the companies should co-ordinate between each other and should follow the guidelines collectively and individually as the guidelines and principle laid down by the Union of India and the State Government are not meant for particular company but for all oil companies.

¶182

In view of the aforesaid discussions, I deem it proper to direct the companies including the respondent company to follow strict compliance of the guidelines framed by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways and by Union of India and Revenue Department and Public Works Department, Local Self Department, Municipal Corporation, Food & Civil Supplies Department, Jaipur Development Authority, UIT and other departments of the Govt. of Rajasthan and as also the Division Bench of this Court time and again issued direction that establishment and installation of petrol pump shall not be in violation of the policy of Govt. of India dated 25th September, 2004 and 17.10.2003 and any other policy issued by the Govt. of India and State of Rajasthan from time to time and further reiterated that no objection certificate by the licensing authority is sine qua non for starting construction of the petrol pump but it is observed that in numerous cases Oil Companies are not strictly complying with the policy and norms prescribed by the Union of India and State of Rajasthan. Therefore, the policy laid down by the Union of India, Govt. of Rajasthan have been discussed and it is observed that all the policies and norms prescribed by the Union of India and State of Rajasthan and by various others

¶183

(22 of 23)

¶184

[CW-8087/2018]

¶185

departments and corporation issued from time to time should be complied with in true and letter spirit. Union of India, State and Corporations are expected to ensure strict compliance of the policy and guidelines and in the instant case also the respondents are directed to test the present case whether retail outlet has been allotted in favour of the respondent No. 6 after due compliance of norms and policy laid down by the Union of India and State of Rajasthan has been followed or not and in case it is found that retail outlet is issued in contravention of the policy and norms prescribed the letter of intent issued to install the retail outlet in favour of respondent No. 6 may be canceled and in such eventuality the respondent oil company is at liberty to invite fresh tender and after verifying this fact the respondent oil company is expected to submit its report to this Court within a period of one month from today. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.”

¶186

This court finds that in the case at hand, the respondents have kept in mind the norms prescribed by the Public Works Department and accordingly the No Objection Certificate has been issued and as such it cannot be said that the guidelines have not been followed or directions given by this court have not been followed by the respondents.

¶187

Counsel for the private respondent No.11 has referred to the revised guidelines/norms issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways dated 24.07.2013 for access permission to fuel stations, private properties, rest area complexes and such other facilities along the National Highway have been provided, this court finds that the guidelines so issued by the Government of India also prescribe in Clause (4) – General Conditions of Siting of the revised guidelines/norms and in nonurban (rural) stretches as per Clause (4.5.1) the distance of petrol pump having intersection with National Highways/State Highways/MDRs is 300 meters, however, the Clause (4.6.3) permits two or more fuel stations to be sited in close proximity for

¶188

(23 of 23)

¶189

[CW-8087/2018]

¶190

some reasons, they have to be grouped together to have a common access through a service road of 7.0 meter width and connected to the Highway through acceleration and deceleration lanes.

¶191

The reliance placed by counsel for the petitioner on Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Arti Devi Dangi & Anr. (supra), the Apex Court has reiterated the position that if Indian Roads Congress guidelines have been adopted by the State of MP, the same are required to be followed. The Apex Court has found that the norms which are prescribed in the public safety and would facilitate the smooth movement of traffic, then such guidelines are required to be followed.

¶192

This court finds that in the present case at hand itself provides the guidelines where relaxation is granted of clustering/ clubbing of petrol pumps, it cannot be said that action of the respondents is in violation of the law laid down by the Apex Court.

¶193

Accordingly, this court does not find that there has been any violation of Rules/guidelines being committed by the respondents and as such the petitioner does not have any case in his favour.

¶194

Consequently, the instant writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶195

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J

¶196

Solanki DS, PS

Chetan Kumar Todawata v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Chetan Kumar Todawata v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Verma S/O Narayan Lal Verma, B/C Raigar Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Santokba the Pharmacy Opd Vs License Authority and Asst. Drug Controller, Jaipur

M/S Vardhman Trading Company Vs Rajasthan State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. (Rajfed)

Shriram General Insurance Comp Vs Rekha Bai and Ors.

Shriram General Insurance Comp Vs Prem Bai and Ors.

Smt Nandu Wife of Late Shri Kalu Lal Alias Amba Lal Gurjar Vs National Insurance Company Limited