Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2042 (RAJ)

Maliram v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited

2019-07-25

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 15.01.2019 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 intersection with NHs/SHs/MDRs/City Roads. It is argued that Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways vide its Office Memorandum dated 25.09.2003, 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 Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others, (2013) 3 WLN(Raj) 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. & Others Vs. Sunita Kumari & Another, (2014) 16 SCC 790 ; Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Arti Devi Dangi, (2016) 15 SCC 480 ; judgment of this Court in Dalpat Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI) & Ors., (2005) 4 WLC(Raj) 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 Kuamr 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 intersection 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 dated 25.09.2003 has adopted the same norms. Learned counsel submitted that the Chief Engineer, PWD, Rajasthan, Jaipur vide letter dated 28.06.2016 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 authoorities has been relied by the appellant. 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 authoorities 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 dated 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 dated 03.07.2017 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 dated 18.01.2017. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, carefully perused the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and other material on record. Clause 4.5 of the IRC:12-2009 provides as under: "4.5 In order to provide safe length for weaving of traffic, fuel stations along highways/roads shall be located at the minimum distance from an intersection (gap in the central median be treated as intersection), as given below. For single carriageway section, these minimum distances would be applicable for both sides. All the distances shall be measured between the tangent points of the curves of the side roads at intersections/the median openings and the access/egress roads of the fuel stations, as is applicable, in a direction parallel to the centre line of the nearest carriageway of the highway. The above mentioned distances are applicable for setting up of fuel stations along National Highways, State Highways and Major District Roads. In case of fuel stations along the Rural Roads in plain and rolling terrain, the distance from the intersection with NHs/SHs/MDRs can be reduced to 300 m in place of 1000 m depending on the level of traffic. 4.5.1Non-urban (Rural) stretches 1)Plain and Rolling Terrain (i)Intersection with NHs/SHs/MDRs/City Roads 1000m" 5. In case of fuel stations along the Rural Roads in plain and rolling terrain, the distance from the intersection with NHs/SHs/MDRs can be reduced to 300 m in place of 1000 m depending on the level of traffic. 4.5.1Non-urban (Rural) stretches 1)Plain and Rolling Terrain (i)Intersection with NHs/SHs/MDRs/City Roads 1000m" 5. The Chief Engineer, PWD, Rajasthan, Jaipur vide letter dated 28.06.2016 has granted relaxation in the following terms: "I am directed to convey approval of the Government to grant relaxation in norms for distance from Intersection Non Urban (Rural) Stretches in Plain and Rolling Terrain, Intersection with NH's/SH's/MDR's/City Roads is 454 M in place of 1000 M as per para 1.1.1 (i) of check list for Norms issued vide this Office No.F.104/P&M-II/NOC/04/543 dated 27.12.2004 & 180 dated 5.7.13 be strictly followed. This relaxation is subject to the following condition of precautions which are to be taken by the owner on his cost:- 1. Construction of necessary speed breakers, sign boards, warning/ informatory sign boards on the junction & on the both sides of the road. 2. Oil Company /owner would construct at least 7.0 M wide service road of appropriate length at their own cost. This bears the approval of Govt. vide ID No. NIL dated 22.6.16. This relaxation is applicable to the instant case only." 6. It is not the case of the appellant that the respondent has violated any of the conditions of the NOC i.e. construction of necessary speed breakers, sign boards, warning/informatory sign boards on the junction and on the both sides of the road and construction of at least 7.0 M wide service road of appropriate length at their own cost. Though the appellant and Mahesh Kumar are two separate persons, but number of petitions, some by the appellant and few by Mahesh Kumar, were filed on the same subject with similar prayer and were decided. 7. Judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Neeraj Kachhawaha (supra), on which reliance has been placed by the appellant, was also a similar case where Bharat Petroleum Corporation allotted another retail outlet to someone who proposed to establish the retail outlet adjacent to retail outlet (petrol pump) of Indian Oil Corporation of the petitioner therein having common service lane. The petitioner therein filed writ petition, which was dismissed. No Objection Certificate referred to Para 5 of the judgment imposed certain conditions for establishment of new retail outlet. The petitioner therein filed writ petition, which was dismissed. No Objection Certificate referred to Para 5 of the judgment imposed certain conditions for establishment of new retail outlet. Division Bench while referring to the guidelines prescribed by the National Road Congress in Para 8 of the judgment, observed in Para 9 that the conditions imposed in NOC have to be strictly adhered to for compliance of the mandatory guidelines issued by the Indian Road Congress. Even in the first case, appellant has not alleged violation of any of the conditions of NOC. Other judgments cited by learned counsel for the appellant are distinguishable on facts and do not apply to the facts of the present case. 8. In view of above, we are not persuaded to take a contrary view than the one taken by learned Single Judge of this Court in the impugned judgment. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. 9. Stay Application No. 3294/2019 also stands dismissed.