SANJAY BHATIA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. K. Sen, C. J. In the instant writ petition, stated to be a 'public Interest Litigation', the petitioners seek to restrain the respondents from raising construction/installing a Petrol Pump on plot No. 5-A Government Industrial Estate, Kalpi Road, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the plot in dispute') (in pursuance of direction of Mr. Lalji Tandon, the then Urban Planning and Development Minister, State of U. P. and the consequential Government order dated 28-4-2002 ). The petitioners have claimed to have filed this petition as 'public Interest Litigation'.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the plot in dispute, was initially leased out to one Girish Chandra Poddar. After the death of Sri Poddar, his heirs could not develop the land for the purpose for which it had been leased out. THErefore, the proposal of the respondent No. 7 for sub-letting the plot in dispute to Sri B. D. Agarwal was considered by the District Industries Centre. It is mandatory under the terms and conditions of the lease-deed that the plot, in dispute, can be utilized only for the purpose of setting up of an industry and the same cannot be used for commercial purposes. It is alleged that the respondent No. 7 made a proposal for setting up an industry to manufacture certain petroleum products. District Industries Administration permitted negotiation of the sub-letting of the plot in dispute and accordingly, a lease-deed was executed on 20- 7-1999, contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition. It stipulates that no change-either by way of transfer or any conveyance thereafter shall be done without the previous consent, in writing of the Industrial Estate Administration. THE petitioners allege that the respondent No. 7 is bound by the aforesaid terms of the lease-deed. That apart, it is alleged that a hire purchase agreement was entered into by the respondent No. 7 with the Director of Industries, U. P. , contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition, which contains a clause that the land shall not be utilized for carrying on any business of dangerous, noisy or offensive nature and that the property shall neither be sold, mortgaged, assigned nor otherwise conveyed nor transferred except with the previous permission, in writing of the Industrial Estate Administration. THE petitioners allege that the parties are bound by the agreement. In utter violation of the aforesaid agreement, the Respondent No. 7, it is alleged, in collusion with respondent No. 8, agreed for getting the Petrol Pump installed despite the fact that there was no such proposal before the District Industries Department respondent No. 7 has been able to procure the impugned letter dated 27-8-2000, contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, from the concerned Minister directing the Director, Industries Department to give permission and consent for the conversion of the plot, in dispute for commercial use. THE petitioners claim that the proposed Petrol Pump is against public interest, inasmuch as, trading in highly inflammable petrol product is an obnoxious trade and is seriously hazardous to the people, residing in the locality.

(3.) SRI R. N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate strenuously urged that if the respondent No. 7 is allowed to install petrol pump in the concerned locality, the entire ecological balance will be disturbed and the residents of the locality will be the worst sufferers. He, therefore, claimed that the instant is 'public Interest Litigation'. In support of his contention, he cited two decisions of the apex Court in Chairman Railway Board v. Chandhima Das, (2002) 2 SCC 465 and M. S. Jayaraj v. Commissioner of Excise, (2002) 7 SCC 552. SRI Singh further contended that in order to uphold the cleanliness in public life and rule of law, the bar of locus standi is not as rigorous as in other petitions of adversial nature. In support of this contention he relied upon paragraphs 50 and 51 of the Report in Nilangekar Patil v. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi, AIR 1987 SC 294. SRI Singh vehemently urged that the present is a case of malice in law and, therefore, he urged that the impugned action on the part of the State Government deserves to be deprecated by this Court. In support of this contention, he drew our attention to the law laid down by apex Court in Smt. S. R. Venkataraman v. Union of India and another, AIR 1979 SC 49 and The Regional Manager and another v. Pawan Kumar Dubey, AIR 1976 SC 1766.