UGALA FILLING STATION Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are running a fuel station allotted to them by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter to be referred as 'the BHPCL"), seek to restrain opening of another fuel station in the nearby premises to be opened by respondent No. 9- the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter to be referred as 'the HPCL"), which has been allotted to respondent No. 10. Fuel station is already opened at the location: Ugala, SH-4, Shahbad Adhoya Road, District Ambala, Haryana, by the petitioner.

(2.) Brief facts which can be culled out from the present petition are that the HPCL issued an advertisement on 25/11/2018 for allotment of regular/ rural retail outlet dealership in various districts of Haryana including District Ambala. It has come on record that respondent No. 10 had applied for the said retail outlet and was intimated on 18/7/2019 that his name having been declared as successful and was awarded dealership subject to compliance of terms and conditions issued by the HPCL in this record. Letter of Intent (LOI) was issued to respondent No. 10 on 10/9/2019. As per the terms and conditions, the HPCL will develop the retail outlet at the location between villages Adhoi and Ugala on the site to be taken on lease / purchased by the HPCL with appropriate structures, storage tanks and pumps.

(3.) The petitioner alleges that before setting up a retail outlet of petrol pump, the necessary permissions were required to be taken from various Government departments such like Forest Department, PWD, etc. They are FLT (14)-20 required to conform to the Indian Roads Congress (hereinafter to be referred as 'the IRC') guidelines in order to get NOC from the PWD. It is stated that as per IRC-12-2016 guidelines, the minimum distance between the fuel station and the intersec. with rural roads/ approach roads to private and public properties should be 300 meters. The petitioners asserted that guidelines are mandatory in nature. It is alleged that their site, as located, does not conform to the IRC guidelines. It is further submitted that as per the NOC issued by respondent Nos. 4 and 5, condition was imposed in the NOC itself that in case of non-compliance of IRC guidelines, NOC will be considered to have been withdrawn/ cancelled. The respondents have allegedly concealed the facts before applying for NOC. It is alleged that NOC granted by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 on 27/2/2020 was issued without actually visiting the site.