Devidas Kanhaiyalal Jejani And ... vs Collector Gadchiroli And 2 Others
2016 Latest Caselaw 5162 Bom

     WP 3936.05 [J].odt                            1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                               
                                   NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR




                                                       
                              WRIT PETITION NO.3936 OF 2005

     1] Devidas s/o Kanhaiyalal Jejani,
        aged about 63 years,
        Occupation-Business,




                                                      
        R/o. Lakhandur Road,
        Desaiganj-Wadsa,
        District-Gadchiroli.

     2] Sandip Govindrao Agrawal,




                                                  
        aged 27 years,
        Occupation-Business, 
        Desaiganj-Wadsa,
        Tahsil-Gadchiroli.                              ..             Petitioners
                            
                                    .. Versus ..

     1] Collector,
        Gadchiroli.
      

     2] Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
        Limited, through its Executive Sales
   



        Officer, having its Regional Office at
        2nd Floor, Oriental Building,
        Sardar Vallabhbai Patel Marg,
        Nagpur.





     3] Mahadeo Wasudeo Nakade,
        aged 55 years,
        Occupation-Business,
        R/o. Visora, Tahsil-Desaiganj,
        District-Gadchiroli.                            ..             Respondents





                             ..........
     Shri M.P. Khajanchi, counsel for the petitioners,
     Shri A.M. Kadukar, A.G.P. for respondent no.1,
     Shri V.V. Bhangde, counsel for respondent no.2,
     Shri V.K. Paliwal, counsel for respondent no.3.
                             ..........

                                    CORAM :  SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK  AND
                                             KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.

DATED : SEPTEMBER 01, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.)

By this writ petition, the petitioners challenge the order of the

Additional District Magistrate, Gadchiroli granting 'No Objection Certificate' for

the storage and use of petrol/diesel to M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation

Limited, Nagpur-Respondent no.2 on the site-plot belonging to the respondent

no.3.

According to the petitioners, though the petitioners had raised an

objection to the grant of permission to the respondent no.2-Corporation to

store the petrol/diesel on the land-site of the respondent no.3 on the ground

that it was not feasible to store petrol/diesel on the said site-land, the

Additional District Magistrate, Gadchiroli had granted permission to the

respondent no.2-Corporation to do so. According to the petitioners, the site

belonging to the respondent no.3 is not convenient for the storage and use of

petrol/diesel and there was a report of the Municipal Council that the site of

the respondent no.3 was not proper.

On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the respondents

that the petition is filed in view of business rivalry. It is stated that the

petitioners wanted to create a monopoly for their own business as they are the

allottees of petrol/diesel pump. It is stated that proper procedure was adopted

by the respondent no.2-Corporation and it was ensured by the respondent

no.2-Corporation that the land of the respondent no.3 was fit for the storage

and use of petrol/diesel. It is stated that the very site that belongs to the

respondent no.3 was used for more than 40 years for storing petrol, barring

the period during which the dealership was given up by the dealer. It is stated

that after following the due procedure, the site of the respondent no.3 was

chosen.

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that

though the petrol/diesel was permitted to be stored or used in the site-plot of

the respondent no.3 since the year 2005, in the absence of any interim relief,

the site of the respondent no.3 is used for the storage and use of petrol/diesel

as per the impugned order. We find from the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf

of the respondent nos.1 and 2 that due care was taken by the respondent nos.1

and 2 to ensure that the petrol/diesel could be stored/used at an appropriate

place. Also, it appears from the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the

respondent no.3 that the very site for which the petitioners have an objection

was used as a petrol pump for nearly 40 years, barring a small period, during

which it was not used. The petrol pump is operated on the site of the

respondent no.3 for several years and a challenge made by the petitioners to

the order of rejection of the prayer for interim relief, before the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has failed with the withdrawal of the special leave petition.

In the circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the

impugned order in exercise of the writ jurisdiction.

In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order

as to costs. Rule stands discharged.

                              JUDGE                                               JUDGE
     Gulande, PA










                                                                                   
                                   C E R T I F I C A T E




                                                           

"I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Judgment/Order."

Uploaded by : A.S. Gulande, P.A. Uploaded on : 07.09.2016.