THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL No.441 of 2023
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)
Ms. B.Rachna Reddy, learned Senior Counsel
representing Mr. Boya Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for
the appellant.
Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor
General of India for respondent No.1.
Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Standing Counsel
for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. Heard on the question of admission.
3. This intra court appeal emanates from an order
dated 12.09.2022 passed in W.P.No.14683 of 2021 by
learned Single Judge of this Court, by which writ petition
preferred by the appellant has been dismissed.
::2::
4. Facts
giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that a Letter of Intent (hereinafter referred to as 'LOI') was issued to the appellant on 20.08.2018 in respect of an LPG distributorship at Alwalpad Village of Jogulamba Gadwal District. The appellant offered land bearing Survey No.70/A of Kothulagidda Village for construction of LPG godown, which was accepted by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'IOCL').
5. The land offered by the appellant was close to railway track. Therefore, the South Central Railway by an order dated 06.11.2019 refused to issue No Objection Certificate (NOC) to the appellant for setting up of the LPG godown. The appellant thereupon took another land situated within the periphery of One (01) kilometer of the land which was initially offered by the appellant and made a request to IOCL to consider the alternate land for construction of LPG godown. The aforesaid request was rejected by IOCL by an order dated 18.02.2020. The appellant challenged the aforesaid order in a writ petition namely W.P.No.14683 of 2021. The learned Single Judge ::3::
by an order dated 12.09.2022 has dismissed the aforesaid writ petition. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that the IOCL did not give opportunity to the appellant to construct the LPG godown on the alternate land. It is further submitted that the guidelines issued in the year 2016 were wrongly applied to the case of respondent No.4 and he has been granted time to construct the LPG godown beyond the time line fixed in this regard. It is also pointed out that respondent No.4 has not taken any steps to commission the LPG godown. Therefore, the LOI made in favour of respondent No.4 should be cancelled.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for IOCL submits that action has been taken in accordance with the prevalent guidelines and does not suffer from any infirmity. It is further submitted that in case the appellant wanted extension of time for making available the initial land offered by him for construction of the LPG godown, the ::4::
same would have been granted to him. It is also pointed out that the request of the appellant seeking permission to construct the LPG godown on the alternate land was considered by a committee of officers and the same has been turned down for the reasons recorded in the Minutes of Meeting dated 10.10.2019. It is also submitted that the order dated 18.02.2020 does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference in exercise of powers of judicial review. It is also contended that time has been granted to respondent No.4 till 31.10.2023 and in case he fails to complete the work of commissioning of LPG godown, the letter of intent issued in favour of respondent No.4 shall be cancelled and a re-draw shall be held.
8. We have considered the rival submissions made on both sides and have perused the record.
9. Admittedly, the appellant has no legal right to seek appointment as an LPG distributor. The appellant has only a right to be treated fairly by IOCL. In the instant case, upon issuance of LOI, the appellant offered the land. The appellant was required to commission the ::5::
distributorship as per Clause 5.1 of the LOI within a period of four (04) months i.e., 19.12.2018. However, on the land offered by the appellant, the LPG godown could not be constructed as it was situated in the close proximity of the railway track. Thereupon the petitioner after a period of approximately seven (07) months offered an alternate land for construction of LPG godown. The suitability of the aforesaid alternate land was assessed by the officers of the IOCL and thereafter the same has been rejected.
10. The order dated 18.02.2020 has been passed on valid and cogent reasons. The issue whether or not the alternate site is suitable for construction of LPG distributorship has to be decided by officers of IOCL. This Court in exercise of powers of judicial review cannot decide the suitability of the alternate land offered by the appellant. The decision taken by IOCL does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers of judicial review.
::6::
11. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any ground to differ with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge.
12. In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ _______________________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J Date: 14.09.2023 KL