Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 67 (JK)

Ved Prakash v. Union of India

2008-03-18

J.P.SINGH

body2008
1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding respondent Nos. l, 2, 4 and 5 to demolish Indian Oil Corporations illegal construction work of Petrol Pump proposed to be set up over land measuring two kanals comprised in Survey Nos. 34 & 35, situated at Thudi, Tehsil and District Rajouri. 2. Petitioner seeks the issuance of directions against the respondents on the ground that construction of Petrol Pump in the area by the Corporation was in contravention of the provisions of the Prevention of Ribbon Development Act, 2007 (1950 A. D.) and the Municipal Laws. It is pleaded by the petitioner that hazardous storage of highly inflammable petroleum products within the residential area would endanger the life of the persons residing in the area. 3. To support his case, the petitioner has annexed copy of the notification issued by the competent authority under the Prevention of Ribbon Development Act, 2007 (1950 A.D.), in terms whereof proposed distance for construction of Petrol Pumps from centre line of Sunderbani-Poonch Road, is prescribed as 100 feet. According to the petitioner, the site at which the Petrol Pump was being constructed was within the prohibited prescribed distance. 4. In response to the writ petition, the Indian Oil Corporation says that petitioners writ petition is misconceived as it does not project violation of any individual right of the petitioner and is in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation which cannot be maintained as such. According to the Corporation, the Government of India through Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas had Formulated a policy for upliftment of people belonging to Backward Classes/Reserved Category, and under this Scheme the Corporation had to provide a Retail Outlet, free of cost, to the persons belonging to such castes, with all infrastructure to be provided by the Corporation. Respondent No.6 had been selected for the purpose and after proper verification/inspection, the land in question had been selected for raising the construction of a Retail Outlet for respondent No.6. The Corporation had initiated process for construction of Retail Outlet after obtaining requisite permission from Municipal Authorities, No objection from Deputy Commissioner, Rajouri, and Licence No. P/NC/JK/14/543(P155955) from Joint Chief Controller of Explosives. 5. The Corporation had initiated process for construction of Retail Outlet after obtaining requisite permission from Municipal Authorities, No objection from Deputy Commissioner, Rajouri, and Licence No. P/NC/JK/14/543(P155955) from Joint Chief Controller of Explosives. 5. According to the Corporation the provisions of the Prevention of Ribbon Development Act, 2007 (1950 A. D.) were not applicable in the area where the Petrol Pump had to be set up, because the road passing through the area had not been notified as such under the Prevention of Ribbon Development Act, 2007 (1950 A.D.) and the road regarding which the restriction for raising construction had been notified under the Act was Sunderbani-Poonch Road and not Rajouri-Kalakote road. Objections filed by respondent Nos. l & 2 indicate that the proposed Retail Outlet was being constructed on the edge of Rajouri-Kalakote road situated within Rajouri Municipality and the restriction of not raising construction within 100 feet distance prescribed in the notification under the Prevention of Ribbon Development Act, 2007 (1950 A. D.), relied upon by the petitioner, was not applicable to the location in question. According to them, the proposed site of Petrol Pump which was at a distance of 30 feet away from the centre line of the rood was being shifted to 85 feet from the centre line of the road. 6. Case set up by respondent No.6 in opposing the writ petition is that the petitioner had filed the writ petition to stall the setting up of retail outlet of petroleum products with malafide intentions, in that, he had himself offered his own land situated in the vicinity of the land in question, comprised in Khasra Nos.35 and 35/1 situated at Ward no.6 Thudi, Rajouri, to the Corporation, for setting up of Retail Outlet and on the refusal of the Corporation to take his land, he had resorted to unnecessary litigation to somehow or the other thwart the process of setting up of the Petrol Pump. Communication addressed by the petitioner to Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, Jammu, making his financial and technical bid for offering his land, and communication addressed by him to Tehsildar Rajouri, seeking issuance, of Non-Encumbrance Certificate in respect of land comprised in Khasra Nos.35 & 35/1, situated at Thudi, Rajouri, have been placed on records by the respondent to demonstrate that the writ petition was malafide and the petitioner had not approached the Court with clean hands. 7. According to respondent No. 6, the location where the Petrol Pump had to be set up did not fall alongside the notified road of Sunderbani-Poonch road and was, on the other hand, on a link road to which the provisions of Prevention of Ribbon Development Act 2007 (1950 A. D.) had no application. Respondent no.6 has stated that all concerned authorities had inspected the location and finding that the construction was not in violation of any of the laws in force in the State, had issued their no objection certificates. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through their pleadings. 9. Petitioner has not projected violation of any of his right in the writ petition. All that he says in the petition, is that the respondent-authorities under the Prevention of Ribbon Development Act 2007 (1950 A.D.) had failed to discharge their statutory functions and in that view of the matter a direction was required to be issued to demolish the construction of proposed retail outlet of petroleum products. The petitioner had sought this relief on the ground that the location of the proposed Retail Outlet would violate the provisions of Prevention of Ribbon Development Act 2007 (1950 A.D.) which prohibits raising of buildings, within a distance of 100 feet from the centre line of Sunderbani-Poonch road. 10. During the course of discussion, land in view of the documents placed on records by the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Kohli, could not substantiate that the proposed location of construction was on Sunderbani-Poonch road. He had candidly accepted that the location of construction was on a link-road known as Rajouri-Kalakote road. 11. 10. During the course of discussion, land in view of the documents placed on records by the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Kohli, could not substantiate that the proposed location of construction was on Sunderbani-Poonch road. He had candidly accepted that the location of construction was on a link-road known as Rajouri-Kalakote road. 11. From the documents placed on records, I am satisfied that the present location where the construction of proposed Retail Outlet had been planned by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited was not alongside Sunderbani-Poonch road, it on the other hand, has been found to be on Rajouri-Kalakote road which has not been notified under the Prevention of Ribbon Development Act 2007 (1950 A.D). 12. The very basis on which the petitioner had come to this Court seeking command against the respondent-authorities to demolish the construction, thus fails. 13. From the documents placed on records, it is apparent that the petitioner had offered his bid to the Corporation for taking his land on lease for giving it to the selected candidate under the Scheme, but his bid does not appear to have been accepted. Having failed to succeed in providing his land to the Corporation for setting up a Petrol Pump near the same area where it is being presently set up, the petitioner has resorted to the present unnecessary litigation. He had obtained an injunctive direction too on, the basis of his writ petition in September 2007. 14. Jurisdiction under Section 103 of Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir and Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be invoked for protection of fundamental, legal or statutory rights. Petitioner has not projected violation of any of such rights in his writ petition. The very basis on which he had approached this Court to seek directions against the respondent-authorities too is found to be factually incorrect. Official documents placed on records demonstrate that the petitioner had not come to this Court with clean hands and he appears to have filed the writ petition to stall the setting up of Retail Outlet of petroleum products by the Corporation when the Corporation had refused to oblige him to take his land for setting up a Retail Outlet. 15. Petitioners writ petition is, therefore, found to be utterly misconceived. It is, accordingly, dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs.5000/-. Interim order issued by this Court on 27.09.2007 shall accordingly stand vacated.