MALIRAM Vs. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against judgment dtd. 15/1/2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

(2.) Mr. Mahesh Kalwania, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as per the Guidelines for Access, Location and Layout of Roadside Fuel Stations and Service Stations (Third Revision), (for short 'IRC:12-2009') issued by Indian Road Congress, in case of fuel stations along the Rural Roads in plain and rolling terrain, there should be minimum distance of 1000 metres of the retail outlet from the intersec. with NHs/SHs/MDRs/City Roads. It is argued that Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways vide its Office Memorandum dtd. 25/9/2003, in its clause 6.1.1, required that the aforesaid guidelines should be adhered to. Reliance is placed on the check list enclosed therewith. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Neeraj Kachhawaha v. State of Rajasthan and Others, 2013 (3) W.L.N. 193 and argued that Division Bench of this Court therein held that the conditions imposed in the no Objection Certificate are meant for adherence to the mandatory guidelines issued by the Indian Road Congress, perusal of which makes it abundantly clear that in the event of violation of those conditions, no objection certificate granted shall stand cancelled. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Chairman cum Managing Director Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Others v. Sunita Kumari and Another, (2014) 16 SCC 790; Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Arti Devi Dangi, (2016) 15 SCC 480; judgment of this Court in Dalpat Singh v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., 2005 (4) W.L.C. 378 and submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed a serious error in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant and upholding the decision of the respondents to issue no Objection Certificate to respondent for running and establishing retail outlet at the disputed location. It is argued that learned Single Judge was not justified in holding that the appellant could not maintain the writ petition, as the public interest litigation petition filed by Mahesh Kumar, who was being represented by the counsel, who appeared on behalf of the appellant in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge and that writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn without liberty to file another petition. It is argued that Mahesh Kumar and the appellant Maliram have no relation with each other.

(3.) Mr. J.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the appeal and submitted that the appellant and Mahesh Kumar filed many writ petitions. In fact the appellant was one of the candidates, who was placed at Serial No. 3 in the select list and since then he has been filing petitions one after another. Letter of Intent was issued on 20/10/2015 and the retail outlet in question has been commissioned and started functioning in the year 2017. Learned counsel submitted that Clause 4.5 of the aforesaid Guidelines of National Road Congress clearly provides that, "In case of fuel stations along the Rural Roads in plain and rolling terrain, the distance from the intersec. with NHs/SHs/MDRs can be reduced to 300 m in place of 1000 m depending on the level of traffic." The Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways vide Office Memorandum dtd. 25/9/2003 has adopted the same norms. Learned counsel submitted that the Chief Engineer, PWD, Rajasthan, Jaipur vide letter dtd. 28/6/2016 addressed to Additional Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Zone-I, Jaipur has granted relaxation for issuing NOC for installation of petrol pump at the disputed location with reference to the aforementioned norms on certain conditions, which are being strictly followed. Even in the Division Bench judgment in Neeraj Kachhawaha (supra) on which reliance has been placed by the appellant, writ petition was filed by the petitioner therein on similar premise which was dismissed and the Division Bench while dismissing the appeal thereagainst observed that the conditions imposed in NOC have to be strictly adhered to for compliance of the mandatory guidelines issued by the National Road Congress and in the event of their violation, NOC so granted shall stand cancelled. Division Bench dismissed the appeal as it found that there was no such eventuality at that moment. It is argued that Maliram and Mahesh Kumar both are hand in gloves. In fact, legal notice given by Mahesh Kumar (Annexure-20 of the writ petition) to all the authorities has been relied by the appellant. It is argued that Writ Petition No. 9487/2016 filed by Mahesh Kumar was dismissed by learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dtd. 23/11/2016 and appeal filed thereagainst being D.B. Special Appeal No. 80/2017 was disposed of by Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dtd. 3/7/2017 with the clarification that what has been observed by the learned Single Judge on merits of the issue shall not prejudice the inter se rights of the parties in the pending writ petition 17046/2016 (another writ petition filed by Mahesh Kumar). Said Writ petition was also dismissed as withdrawn by Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dtd. 18/1/2017.