Allahabad High Court
Gurbaj Singh Kang vs Union Of India And 2 Others on 2 May, 2023
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Manjive Shukla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6323 of 2019
Petitioner :- Gurbaj Singh Kang
Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Anand Tiwari,Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Amitabh Singh holding brief of Shri Anand Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents.
Present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the draw of lots of the location, namely Village Ranmastpur Buzurg on Banda to Devkali Road, Tehsil Powayan, District Shahjahanpur under the category open CC 1 at Sl. No.3543, advertised by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., vide advertisement dated 25.11.2018.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that controversy in hand has already been settled by the Division Bench of this Court in bunch of writ petitions with leading Writ-C No.3267 of 2019 (M/s Hardev Filling Station v. Union of India & Ors.) vide order dated 13.9.2019 and as such present writ petition may also be decided in similar terms. For ready reference, the order dated 13.9.2019 is quoted as under:-
"Heard Sri Jitendra Pal Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vikas Budhwar, learned counsel for the Corporation, Sri Anand Tiwari and Sri Vikram Chauhan, Sri Yogendra Kumar, learned counsel for Union of India and perused the record.
This bunch of writ petitions raise common question of fact and law and accordingly all these petitions are being heard and decided together.
By means of these petitions, the respective petitioners have challenged the advertisement issued by respondent Corporation for allotment of the retail outlets petrol pump.
The argument advanced for assailing the advertisement is that as per the guidelines and the decision taken by the Petroleum Ministry, the setting up of petrol pump in close vicinity of existing petrol pump is not feasible and against the public policy.
Per contra the learned counsels appearing for the respective Corporations have submitted that the identical controversy had already travelled to this Court in Writ C No. 5432 of 2019 which came to be dismissed on 15.2.2019 against which special leave to appeal has also been dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 26.7.2019.
The above legal and factual aspect of the matter, learned counsel for the respective petitioners do not dispute.
In view of the above, since the controversy has come to be crystallized with the dismissal of the writ petition by the Division Bench and the said order is upheld by the Apex Court with the dismissal of SLP, the controversy can no longer detain us and, accordingly, we also dismiss the writ petitions.
We may further observe that setting up of another petrol pump would at the most bring competition to business prospects of the petitioner but that by itself is not a legal wrong warranting legal remedy. Adverse impact on profitability by itself is no legal injury recognized by law. The legal maxim damnum sine injuria is fully applicable in the present case.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed."
So far as factual and legal aspect is concerned, the same could not be disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner.
In view of above, present writ petition is also dismissed in terms of judgment in M/s Hardev Filling Station (Supra).
Order Date :- 2.5.2023
SP/
