GUDDI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The solitary grievance raised in the petition is that the site for a retail outlet of petroleum products as allocated to respondent No.6 is being constructed without adherence to the norms in particular, Rule 167 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 which requires that no storage tank or filing facility for liquefied petroleum gases shall be nearer than 90 metres to any still, boiler or furnace or nearer than 30 metres to any storage tank, pump-house or any facility for the blending or filling of petroleum or to any protected work. For the purpose of reference, Section 167 is extracted here below :-

(2.) The petitioner places reliance on Annexure P-4 according to which he has been given the information under the R.T.I.Act indicating the distance between the proposed site and the brick kiln as 42 karms implying thereby that it is slightly above 90 metres. For the purpose of reference, the relevant clause of the information as provided to the petitioner and contained in Annexure P-4 is extracted here below :-

(3.) The petition is resisted by the respondents who have stated that the petitioner is waging a proxy battle and that one Vijender son of Ishwar Singh resident of Ward No.12, Gohana Road has already filed a civil suit with a similar prayer which has been made in the instant petition. The prayer for an interim injunction was declined after considering the relevant material which was placed before the learned trial Court. Appeal against the said order was also dismissed. Thereafter another suit was filed by one Pawan Kumar and Joginder son of Fateh Singh again with a similar prayer. These two persons claim that the suit was filed keeping in view the interest of the public and injunction was declined to them similarly. Then another writ petition bearing C.W.P. No.9787 of 2012 was filed by one Kuldip in which a similar objection was raised by the respondents. This petition also raised the same question of a retail outlet which is now in question in this petition as well. The said petition was dismissed as withdrawn when the petitioners were summoned by the Court considering their dubious credentials as litigants. It is thus pleaded by the respondents that this petition is a malicious one considering the fact that the petitioner is waging proxy litigation which is evident from the fact that he placed reliance on Anneuxre P-2 i.e. information which was given out to Vijender under R.T.I. who is a plaintiff in the civil suit before the learned trial Court. That apart, reference has been made to the site plan appended as Annexure R-6/2 which is a site plan taken into consideration by the competent authority for giving no objection for the construction of the retail outlet which indicates that between the proposed site and the furnace of the brick kiln, there is a distance of 180 metres out of which 105 metres is the vacant area and 75 metres is from the boundary of the brick kiln to the furnace.