Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Asish Mandal vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 September, 2022
Form No. J(2)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta
W.P.A. 20818 of 2022
Asish Mandal
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
For the petitioner Mr. Tapan Kumar Sinha
Mr. Arunava Pati
For the respondent nos.
2 to 5 Mr. Biswanath Chatterjee
Mr. Sobhan Kumar Pathak
Heard on : 21.09.2022.
Judgment on : 21.09.2022.
Jay Sengupta, J.
This is an application seeking direction upon the respondent
no.5 to recall, revoke or rescind the order being Ref. No.
15449492621674 dated 31st May, 2022.
Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on
record.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits
as follows. In 2018, an advertisement was published for selection of
dealership for grant of Retail Outlet Dealership. The petitioner made
an application for obtaining such dealership. In 2019, the petitioner
executed a lease deed. The petitioner had to approach this Court for
certain reliefs. Thereafter, the petitioner received a letter from the
Head of Regional Office, Durgapur Retail Regional Office, HPCL on
13.07.2021. However, by the impugned letter, the petitioner was
intimated that his application was rejected as the land offered by him
was not found suitable. It was further stated that the offer of land was
not commensurate with the NHAI guidelines. An intersection road
with paved concrete of more than 3 metre width and length more than
300 metre and within 300 metre from the offered plot. It was further
stated therein that in case the petitioner had any grievance against
the rejection, he could make a representation within 10 days from the
date of receipt of this letter. The petitioner did make a representation
which also evoked a similar response. One Barnali Mondal with
similar land near an intersection road was, however, granted such
dealership. This violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Intersection road would essentially mean that two roads cut across
each other and each go beyond the other.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Oil Companies
submits as follows. The NHAI guidelines are mandatory and no
dealership can be granted in violation of the same. Besides, an
intersection road does not necessary mean that the two roads should
cross each other in a fashion that one goes beyond the other.
Intersection can fairly happen if one road reaches the other road or
connects it. The petitioner has not produced any document to show
that one Barnali Mondal was granted dealership in violation of the
NHAI guidelines. She has not even been made a party in this writ
petition.
I have heard the submissions of the learned counsels appearing
on behalf of the parties and have perused the writ petition.
First, an intersection road would not necessarily mean that the
two roads should cross each other and proceed beyond the other. It is
sufficient if a road cuts or connects the other road at a particular
point.
The respondents had categorically stated that the land offered
by the petitioner did not conform to the NHAI guidelines. That is why
the dealership applied for could not be granted.
After the petitioner made another representation in respect of
the rejection, the same was taken into consideration and a more
detailed reasoning was provided.
Although the petitioner has claimed that one Barnali Mondal
was granted dealership in spite of violation of the NHAI guidelines,
there is no document produced in support of the same. The said
Barnali Mondal was also not made a party in this writ petition. In any
event, if a wrong is committed in another case, the same should not
be repeated here or else, the respondents would become otherwise
liable for violation of the guidelines.
It is another thing that the petitioner or any other person may
be interested in taking up the issue of purported wrong allotment of
dealership in alleged violation of the NHAI guidelines before an
appropriate forum.
In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copies of this order may be delivered
to the learned Advocates for the parties, if applied for, upon
compliance of all formalities.
(Jay Sengupta, J.)
ssi
