KABITA DAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Roy, learned CGC for the respondent nos.1 and 2; Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and Mr. P. Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the feasibility report dtd. 15/11/2018, on the basis of which Notice dtd. 25/11/2018 was published, for appointment of a Rural Retail Outlet (RO) dealer by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. The retail outlet (petrol pump) that was to be set up was at Patiladaha Highway, within 5 kms from NH17 intersection, which is in close vicinity to the petitioner's petrol pump.

(3.) The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner has a petrol pump in the said area in the name of Patiladaha Ananta KSK. He submits that for opening up of a new retail outlet, the Government of India, Ministry of Petrol and Natural Gas had issued guidelines/criteria to be followed by Oil Manufacturing Companies vide letter No. P-19011/5/2010-IOC dtd. 6/4/2011, addressed to the Chief Executive Officers of the three Oil Manufacturing Companies (OMCs), i.e. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Indian Oil Corporation. In terms of the said letter dtd. 6/4/2011, a feasibility study was to be made by Oil Manufacturing companies for opening new retail outlets wherein, they were to consider the appropriate returns/financial viability of the new retail outlet. He submits that as per the letter dtd. 6/4/2011, a oil manufacturing company may work out a mechanism where the ED (Retail) of the three OMCs, may decide by consensus, on expansion of network in new areas like developing suburbs in cities, new highways, road bypass etc. He submits that though the respondent No. 3 has issued a notice for opening a new RO in a Rural area near the location of the petitioner's petrol pump, in terms of the feasibility report dtd. 15/11/2018 and the Notice dtd. 25/11/2018, the said feasibility report does not make a mention of the petitioner's petrol pump. He submits that the feasibility report had been made after considering two petrol pumps, which were at a further distance from the petitioner's petrol pump. As such, the respondent No. 3 should be directed to make a new feasibility report, in which the petitioner's petrol pump should be considered and thereafter, consider if it would be feasible to have a new RO.