LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. HEENA KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The first Respondent wanted to have a retail outlet for the petroleum products of HPCL, at Bellview Compound, Tallital, Nainital. He filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Appellant to issue formal sanction to enable him to establish, install and run the retail outlet. According to first Respondent, the Appellant neither granted nor refused sanction. Therefore, the first Respondent approached the High Court by filing WP No. 1067/2004.

(3.) The High Court has passed a series of orders in the said proceedings. It appointed an Advocate as a conciliator to settle the dispute on 14.11.2006. On 6.12.2006, the said order was withdrawn and the Chairman of the Appellant was required to be present on 12.12.2006 in court. By order dated 12.12.2006, the High Court disposed of the writ petition purportedly recording an undertaking of the Chairman of the Appellant that the Appellant/District administration would give an alternative land with an NOC to the Respondent within one month. Thereafter, the first Respondent filed an application for review seeking a direction to the Appellant to grant permission to Respondent to establish a petrol pump at the original site. The High Court allowed the review petition by order dated 28.3.2007 and directed the grant of sanction to first Respondent within fifteen days, a licence to construct a petrol pump (retail outlet) at the originally applied plot. Again, the Respondent applied for modification seeking a direction to the Appellant to release the sanction plan within one week or to permit him to proceed on the basis of deemed sanction. The High Court allowed the said modification application also on 2.5.2007. Thereafter, the High Court has initiated contempt action suo moto and issued a notice dated 18.8.2007. At that stage, the Appellant approached this Court challenging the orders dated 12.12.2006, 28.3.2007, 2.5.2007 and 18.8.2007 on several grounds.