ORDER : 1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for quashing and setting aside the Order No. RO/Vadodara/111 dated 21.06.2019 passed by the respondent- Petroleum Company. The petitioner has also prayed for direction to the respondent to take a decision on the application of the petitioner for shifting and resitement of the petrol pump from its present location to another alternate land. 2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is running a Petrol Pump outlet on the land of Village Por on National Highway No. 8, the land on which the petitioner was a tenant. It is submitted that on account of the disputes with the landlord, the petitioner had filed a Rent Suit before the Civil Court at Baroda and as the litigation was prolonged the petitioner had made an application before the respondent authority for shifting the petrol pump on an alternate land and such shifting/resitement is permitted as per the Policy of the respondent-Petroleum Company. 3. It is submitted that the impugned decision of not considering the application is on the ground that the petitioner has not exhausted the remedy available under the law till the forum of High Court and therefore, the case of the petitioner could not be considered under the Resitement Policy. It is submitted that when the petitioner has filed a Civil Suit before the Civil Court at Vadodara and has withdrawn such Suit on account of lapse of time, the action of the petitioner should be deemed to be having exhausted the remedy available and therefore, covered under the policy for resitement. 4. Learned Advocate for the respondent opposing grant of the petition states that at the outset, the policy is clear with regard to the resitement incase of a legal dispute. The case of the petitioner cannot be considered as the petitioner has not exhausted the remedy as required under Clause 1.1.1 (e) of the Guideline for resitement of Retail Outlet Dealership. The premature withdrawal of the Rent Suit dated 13.02.2019 is not covered under the Policy and therefore, in view of operation of Clause 1.1.1 (e), the respondent Petroleum Company has rightly rejected the application. 5. The premature withdrawal of the Rent Suit dated 13.02.2019 is not covered under the Policy and therefore, in view of operation of Clause 1.1.1 (e), the respondent Petroleum Company has rightly rejected the application. 5. It is submitted that in the facts of this case, the tenancy of the petitioner was terminated long back before the petitioner could offer the alternate land and that the petitioner was put out of the possession as a result of which, the retail petrol pump was not being operated. It is submitted that the Policy of resitement is Policy which is made applicable throughout India and the petitioner has failed to make out any special case to differ from the Policy. It is submitted that infact to circumvent the policy, the petitioner has played a ploy to file a Civil Suit and withdraw before the Civil Court at Vadodara. 6. I have heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the records of the case. It appears that the petitioner was running a Petrol Pump in the name of M/s. Jay Jalaram Petroleum, a petrol pump located on National Highway No. 8 (within the revenue limits of Village Por) at Village Vadodara. A Rent Suit No. 411/2013 came to be filed by the petitioner on 13.06.2013 against the original landlord seeking declaration of the petitioner to be declared as a legally recognized tenant and not to dispossess him. However, from the record it appears that the petitioner has already been dispossessed of the land and as on date, the retail outlet is closed and the petitioner is not in possession of the said land on which the petroleum pump is located. It appears that the petitioner had made an application on 27.02.2013 for resitement of the petrol pump. However such application at Annexure 'E' does not indicate if any alternative land is made available. From the record, it appears that now the petitioner is relying upon an Undertaking dated 14.12.2018 to offer alternate land at Village Manglej, Taluka Karjan, District Vadodara. It appears that the petitioner had made an application on 27.02.2013 for resitement of the petrol pump. However such application at Annexure 'E' does not indicate if any alternative land is made available. From the record, it appears that now the petitioner is relying upon an Undertaking dated 14.12.2018 to offer alternate land at Village Manglej, Taluka Karjan, District Vadodara. This Court is of the view that after an application made in 2013, there is nothing on record to suggest of any attempt being made by the petitioner to provide for an alternate land till December 2018 when an Undertaking is executed with the original owners of the land in question of Village Manglej (alternate land) the same is sent to the respondent under a communication dated 16.01.2019. The alternative therefore, provided is grossly belated. 7. It is pertinent to note that when the location for opening the retail outlet is advertised for public to make offer at that time, the respondent Company has to undertake an elaborate exercise to pin-point such location and therefore, for such location selected and thereafter, offered for opening of retail outlets has to have some sanctity and cannot be shifted from one place to another, without there being a valid reason. Apparently, the policy therefore framed (Annexure R-1) dated 07.05.2019 bearing Ref. No. RO/6022 which is a guideline for resitement of retail outlet indicate that if the dealer is forced to vacate the existing site by the lessor or by any authority then the dealer is required to exhaust all the remedies till the High Court. The purpose behind such guideline is only to preserve the site selected by the petrol pump for allocating the petrol pump which would in the best interest of the local public. 8. The Civil Suit filed by the petitioner was abandoned by the petitioner midway by seeking withdrawal of the rent suit and such withdrawal will not satisfy the requirement of Clause 1.1.1. (e) which reads as under:- “1. RESITEMENT OF COMMISSIONED RETAIL OUTLET DEALERSHIPS: 1.1. (e) Dealer is forced to vacate existing site by the lessor or any authority after the dealer has exhausted all legal remedies upto High Court.” 9. (e) which reads as under:- “1. RESITEMENT OF COMMISSIONED RETAIL OUTLET DEALERSHIPS: 1.1. (e) Dealer is forced to vacate existing site by the lessor or any authority after the dealer has exhausted all legal remedies upto High Court.” 9. Considering the aforesaid, the case of the petitioner does not fall within the parameters which are germane for the resitement and therefore, the application of the petitioner is rightly rejected and no fault can be found in the decision of the Petroleum Company. The Court is in agreement with the submissions made by the respondent that the Guidelines for resitement as it is an applicable on ‘All India Basis’ and therefore, cannot be twisted to suit the requirement of one person like the petitioner. Moreover, the facts of the petition are not so to cause any diversion in the Guidelines to permit resitement of the Retail Outlet. 10. In view of the above, no case is made out to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Notice is discharged.