Judgment 1. In a suit for permanent injunction filed by Rajesh and other plaintiffs against the defendants, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Sec. 151, C.P.C.praying that the defendants are not entitled to resite the petrol pump from Jahri Road to National Highway G.T.Road in accordance with Rules and, thus, prayed for a temporary injunction to that effect. The suit and application were contested by defendants M/s. Bhagwan Oil Company and I.B.P.Company Limited. 2. The plaintiffs pleaded that they are permanent residents and agriculturists of village Jahri. The defendants had installed long back a retail petrol pump out-let on Jahri Road near Sugar Mills, Sonepat. State clearance was taken for this purpose. The petrol pump was situated opposite Co-operative Sugar Mills, Sonepat and, thus, was feeding to the needs of various villagers and the tractors, trucks and vehicles etc. which come to the Sugar Mills for the purposes of fuelling petrol and diesel. It was stated that defendat No. 2 was permitting defendant No. 1 to resite the petrol pump on National Highway G.T.Road against rules, regulations and to the prejudice of the interests of the villagers and the plaintiffs. Therefore, they filed the suit along with injunction application. 3. Both the defendants filed independent written statements and took various objections to the very maintainability of the suit as well as challenged the locus-standi of the plaintiffs to file the suit. It was stated on merits that after complying with the various provisions of the policy and circular in this regard it had been decided to resite the petrol pump in the interest of all concerned. It was specifically pleaded that after construction of bye-pass the traffic of the road on which the petrol pump is situated has decreased significantly and the petrol pump has become an unworkable proposition. Number of other petrol pumps were stated to be located within a radius of 2 to 5 kilometres and nobdoy was being put to any additional inconvenience. 4. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court vide its order dated 1-9-1998 dismissed the injunction application filed by the plaintiff. Aggrieved from the said order the plaintiffs preferred an appeal which was accepted by the learned first Appellate Court vide its order dated 5-11-1999 and allowed the injunction application in the following terms :- "So, in view of my above discussion, Rajesh etc. Aggrieved from the said order the plaintiffs preferred an appeal which was accepted by the learned first Appellate Court vide its order dated 5-11-1999 and allowed the injunction application in the following terms :- "So, in view of my above discussion, Rajesh etc. plaintiffs/appellants have got prima facie case, balance of convenience is also in their favour. Not only Rajesh etc. but numerous owners of Auto Vehicles which run with Diesel and Petrol, shall suffer an irreparable loss. So, Rajesh etc. are entitled to temporary injunction against defendants/respondents. The conclusion of learned trial Court that application u/O.39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C.is without merit, is unjust and against law. So, the order under appeal is set aside. Appeal succeeds and it is accepted with costs." 5. The defendants in the suit have, thus, filed two different revisions. M/s. I.B.P.Company has filed Civil Revision No. 5924 of 1999. As both these revisions are directed against the same order, it will be appropriate to dispose of these revisions by a common order. 6. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for all the parties relied upon the instructions issued by all the petroleum companies of the country dealing with volume/distance and norms for setting up retail out-lets. In this book-let a specific chapter has been provided for "full/partial resitement of a retail out-let with the same dealer." Learned counsel for both the petitioners informed the Court that there were certain improvements made in the instructions book by the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas on 3-11-1998. They also produced a copy thereof. The obvious result is that the controversy between the parties in this regard has to be determined in the light of guidelines dated 3-12-1998. It is stated in the gudelines that the ministry had decided to delegate the authority for resitement of retail out-let dealership/L.P.G.distributorship to the oil marketing companies concerned. For grant of request for re-settlement of retail out-lets, specific conditions were prescribed. The relevant clauses of the prescribed guidelines are reproduced hereunder :- "(i) RO/Distributorship should be in operation for a minimum period of three years unless sales through RO/Distributorship has gone below the economic level of operation within three years.(ii) Resitement will be permitted only in the same market/trading area or in the same class of market in the same district. The relevant clauses of the prescribed guidelines are reproduced hereunder :- "(i) RO/Distributorship should be in operation for a minimum period of three years unless sales through RO/Distributorship has gone below the economic level of operation within three years.(ii) Resitement will be permitted only in the same market/trading area or in the same class of market in the same district. Cases involving inter-district resitement will be considered and decided by the Oil Company concerned at its Board level.(vii) The concerned Oil Company will ensure that the customers, particularly those in the rural areas are not put to any undue inconveniences in getting supplies for their machinery equipments/domestic consumption." 7. Clause 8 of the earlier instructions provided as under :- "8. When an Oil Company proposes a resitement it would inform the other Oil Companies by a letter sent by Registered Post giving full details of the proposal. A copy of the same will be marked to the State Level Co-ordinator also (for information only). 8 It has been stated in the replies filed on behalf of the defendants to the application and written statement that all the oil companies were circulated a letter after taking into consideration the economic feasibility. As per above terms the Board of the Oil Company had taken a decision to resite the patrol pump in question. Once the prescribed authority takes the decision in consonance with the prescribed norms, it will be very difficult for the Court to go into the merits of such decision at this stage. It has not only been stated in the written statement that there are at least other four or five petrol pumps within a radius of 4-5 kilometres, but also a sketch was produced before this Court showing the location of those petrol pumps and their respective numbers. 9. It cannot be disputed that a bye-pass road has been constructed as a result of which there has been a traffic diversion. If there is a traffic diversion and the authorities concerned have taken a decision on basis of the circumstances existing on the site that it is not a viable proposal to run the petrol pump at the same point and in the economic interests as that of the petroleum company itself, it is necessary to resite the petrol pump. If there is a traffic diversion and the authorities concerned have taken a decision on basis of the circumstances existing on the site that it is not a viable proposal to run the petrol pump at the same point and in the economic interests as that of the petroleum company itself, it is necessary to resite the petrol pump. I am unable to see any error much less any arbitrariness in the action of the Oil Corporation Company. It has come on record that the company has made huge investments at the newly allotted site. 10. At this stage in order to examine even the bona fides of present respondents I would like to refer to certain facts recorded by the learned trial Court in its order dated 1-9-1998 :- "Earlier a civil writ petition No. 612 of 1998 titled as M/s. Satya Filling Station V/s. The Union of India etc. was filed in the Hon ble High Court in which the present defendants were also respondents, and after having argued the matter at length, the said petition was got dismissed as withdrawn. Now the present plaintiffs seems to have been planted. In M/s. Ram Sarup Chiranji Lal V/s. The Union of India etc. CWP No. 1088 of 1998, in which a similar matter was involved, the Hon ble High Court had passed the following order on 27-1-1998 :- "By resitement of the outlet, this Court is of the view, no right of petitioner has been infringed. True, petitioner shall have to face some more competition but that in itself does not give it a right to challenge the resitement. Dismissed. 27-1-1998. Sd/- V.K.Bali, Judge. Sd/- M.L.Singhal, Judge." 4.In yet another similar CWP No. 6386 of 1996 title as M/s. Surinder Singh V/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. etc. the Hon ble High Court had held that no legal right of the petitioner in any manner had been infringed and as such no interference was call for. The petition was dismissed. In Des Raj V/s. State of Haryana etc. (CWP No. 1524 of 1997) in which again a similar question was involved, the Hon ble High Court had held as under :- "After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record, we find that in case retail outlet is being resited without following proper procedure in law, then respondent No. 7 shall suffer consequences. (CWP No. 1524 of 1997) in which again a similar question was involved, the Hon ble High Court had held as under :- "After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record, we find that in case retail outlet is being resited without following proper procedure in law, then respondent No. 7 shall suffer consequences. So far as the present writ petition is concerned, no interference is called for and the same is dismissed. Interim order dated 31-1-1997 whereby respondent No. 3 was restrained from commissioning the retail outlet even if no objection certificate has been issued by the State of Haryana, stands vacated.Sd/- V.K.Jhanji, Sd/- B.Rai.12-12-1997 Judges." 11. In the light of above orders of two different Division Benches of this Court, I am unable to see how could the first Appellate Court record that the order of the learned trial Court was without merit and against law. No Court can certainly compel a person to carry on his business which otherwise is not profitable or would result in his ruin. The oil company is the sole Judge of the circumstances and grounds in which it would grant or decline permission for resitement of the petroleum out-let. Unless such permission was stated to be totally against law or was palpably arbitrary, it will not be appropriate for the Court to interfere in carrying on of a commerical activity and its location, more particularly when any change therein is specifically permissible under the relevant policy or instructions of the Government. I have no hesitation in noticing that order of the Appellate Court is again ambiguous and lacks clarity. 12. After the order of the trial Court dated 1-9-1998 it is claimed by the petitioners herein that they have already re-sited the retail out-let at the highway G.T.Road and the same is operative. However, the respondents herein contended to the contrary. It was stated at the bar during the course of hearing that even a contempt petition is pending against the petitioners herein. Keeping in view this fact, I would refrain from discussing this issue any further so as to avoid prejudice to either party in the contempt proceedings which are stated to be pending in the Court. It was stated at the bar during the course of hearing that even a contempt petition is pending against the petitioners herein. Keeping in view this fact, I would refrain from discussing this issue any further so as to avoid prejudice to either party in the contempt proceedings which are stated to be pending in the Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the case of Welfare Association, Sector 7, Urban Estate, Faridabad V/s. Rajiv Kapoor, (1996) 4 JT (SC) 94 to contend that they should be permitted to carry on the business at the new site during the pendency of the suit and they would claim no equity at the time of disposal of the suit. The learned counsel also relied upon the observations of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Mithilesh Garg V/s. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 443 in support of his case. 13. The application filed by the plaintiffs does not appear to be entirely bona fide. It certainly has element of bias and malice. Even correct facts have not been stated in the plaint. In the face of the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court, there was hardly any choice left with the learned trial Court to decline the interim injunction which it rightly declined. The learned first Appellate Court has fallen in error in disturbing the well reached order of the learned trial Court. 14. For the reasons afrestated the impugned order dated 9-11-1999 is set aside and the order of the trial Court is restored. The obvious result is that the application for injunction filed by the plaintiff is dismissed. Any observations made in this order shall no way affect the rights and contentions of the parties in any other proceedings/applications if pending before any other Court between the parties. The revisions are accepted without any orders as to costs.Order accordingly.