BOLLU RAJA REDDY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was granted petroleum retail outlet in Gopalpet Village of Nagireddypet in Kamareddy District. The respondent- Petroleum Corporation issued notification on 14.12.2018 calling upon applications for enlistment of petroleum retail outlet dealers in various locations spread all over the State. In this Writ Petition challenge is to the said notification more specifically against locating petroleum retail outlets in Dharmareddypet (Location No.1232), Nagireddypet (Location No.1361), Gopalpet Village (Location No.799) and Raghavapalli (Location No.844).

(2.) Heard Smt. B.Rachna Reddy learned counsel for petitioner, Sri K.Lakshman, learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondent no.1 and Sri B.Mayur Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondents 2 and 4.

(3.) According to learned counsel for petitioner, the Indian Oil Corporation Limited proposed four retail outlets very nearer to petitioner's outlet and one of them is proposed in the same village and in addition, other Oil Corporations have also proposed to establish retail outlets. In such an event, it would not be viable to run the outlet of petitioner. According to learned counsel, these retail outlets are proposed in the rural areas where the vehicular movement is less. Only during the peak agricultural season the demand will be slightly higher, leaving rest of the year struggling to secure minimum sales targets, and with great difficulty, petitioner is now able to sustain himself after running retail outlet for more than 40 years. According to learned counsel, arbitrary and discriminatory decision made by the respondent Corporation would be offending the right of petitioner to carryon his business vested in him under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The respondent Corporation cannot take such a unilateral decision without assessing the viability factor. According to learned counsel, Kerala High Court in the case of Basheer M.M. and another v. State of Kerala, rep.by its Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Thiruvananthapuram and others (W.A.No.741 of 2011 and batch) has laid down guidelines to locate retail outlets. According to this judgment, in the rural area, there should not be new retail outlet within 5 KMs, and existing outlet must have a turnover of 150 to 200 KLs to establish new outlet. Both parameters are violated in the instant case, and therefore impugned notification, more particularly with reference to four locations notified by the IOCL around the location of petitioner's retail outlet is illegal.