Himachal Pradesh High Court
Its Sole Proprietor vs Aarti Devi Dangi And on 17 August, 2021
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Satyen Vaidya
REPORTABLE/NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 17th DAY OF AUGUST 2021
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN
.
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA
CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 4239 OF 2020
CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.3338 OF 2020
CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.2703 OF 2020
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4239 OF 2020
Between:-
M/S ADITYA H.P. CENTRE THROUGH
ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR,
SMT. AMAN PARMAR,
W/O SHRI RAKESH PARMAR,
R/O HOUSE NO.398, SECTOR 30A,
CHANDIGARH
......PETITIONER
(BY SH. AJAY SHARMA, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MS.
AANANDITA SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS
SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM
AND NATURAL GASES, GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA, NEW DELHI.
2. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED,
30779/3, JOSEPH BROS TITO MARG,
SECTOR 3, SADIQ NAGAR, NEW DELHI,
THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN
3. AREA OFFICER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION
LIMITED BLOCK NO.21, SDA COMPLEX,
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:53:33 :::CIS
-2-
KASUMPTI, SHIMLA-9, THROUGH ITS
REGIONAL MANAGER.
4. HIMACHAL PRADESH AGRO
INDUSTRIES CORPORATION
LIMITED, GROUND FLOOR,
.
NIGAM VIHAR COMPLEX, SHIMLA
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
5. REGIONAL MANAGER, HIMACHAL PRADESH
AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LIMITED
DRDA COMPLEX, DHARAMSHALA, DISTRICT
KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.
......RESPONDENTS
(SH. LOKENDER PAL THAKUR, SR. PANEL COUNSEL, FOR
RESPONDENT NO.1
SH. K.D. SOOD & SH. SHRAWAN DOGRA, SENIOR
ADVOCATES, WITH SH. MUKUL SOOD, ADVOCATE, FOR
RESPONDENTS NO.2 & 3.
(SH. NEERAJ SHARMA AND SH. SUSHANT VIR SINGH
THAKUR, ADVOCATES, FOR RESPONDENTS NO.4 & 5)
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3338 OF 2020
Between:-
SH. HARDEEP SINGH
S/O SH. KULDEEP SINGH,
R/O VPO BELA, TEHSIL
NADAUN, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR
177033 HIMACHAL PRADESH
......PETITIONER
(BY SH ARVIND SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY,
PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS,
SHASTRI BHAWAN, A- WING, SHASTRI
RAJINDER PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI.
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:53:33 :::CIS
-3-
2. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED,
30779/3, JOSIP BROz TITO MARG,
SECTOR 3, SADIQ NAGAR, NEW DELHI,
THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN
3. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION
LIMITED, SHIMLA AREA OFFICE,
.
IOCL, BLOCK NO.21,
SDA COMPLEX, KASUMPTI, SHIMLA,
HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS
REGIONAL MANGER.
4. HIMACHAL PRADESH AGRO
INDUSTRIES CORPORATION
LIMITED, GROUND FLOOR,
NIGAM VIHAR COMPLEX, SHIMLA
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
5. HIMACHAL PRADESH AGRO INDUSTRIES
CORPORATION LTD, COLLEGE ROAD,
DRDA COMPLEX, FIRST FLOOR,
DHARAMSHALA, HIMACHAL PRADESH,
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL MANAGER.
......RESPONDENTS
(SH. LOKINDER PAL THAKUR, SR. PANEL COUNSEL
FOR RESPONDENT NO.1
SH. K.D. SOOD & SH. SHRAWAN DOGRA, SENIOR
ADVOCATES WITH SH. MUKUL SOOD, ADVOCATE, FOR
RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3).
SH. SUSHANT VIR SINGH THAKUR, ADVOCATE, FOR
RESPONDENTS NO.4 AND 5.)
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2703 OF 2020
SH. JITENDER KUMAR S/O SH. MOHAN SINGH,
VILLAGE THAMANI, P.O. SAUR, TEHSIL BARSAR,
DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH, PRESENTLY
PROPRIETOR M/S JITENDERA H.P. CENTRE LALUWAL,
P.O. DULEHAR, DISTRICT UNA, H.P. DEALER
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:53:33 :::CIS
-4-
...PETITIONER
(BY SH. BHUVNESH SHARMA AND SH. RAMAKANT
SHARMA, ADVOCATES).
AND
.
1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM, GOVT. OF INDIA,
NEW DELHI.
2. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED,
INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, G-9,
ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG,
BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI,
THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN.
3. SENIOR DIVISION MANAGER,
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,
INDANE AREA OFFICE, SHIMLA,
BLOCK NO. 21,
SDA COMPLEX, KASUMPTI, SHIMLA-171009.
4. SH. SATWANT SINGH, S/O SH. FAUZA SINGH,
R/O VILLAGE LALLUWAL, P.O. BIDERWAL,
TEHSIL HAROLI, DISTT. UNA,
PIN CODE NO. 176601. ...RESPONDENTS
(SH. LOKINDER PAL THAKUR, SR. PANEL COUNSEL
FOR RESPONDENT NO.1
SH. K.D. SOOD & SH. SHRAWAN DOGRA, SENIOR
ADVOCATES WITH SH. MUKUL SOOD, ADVOCATE, FOR
RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3).
SH. VISHAL PANWAR, ADVOCATE, FOR RESPONDENT NO.
4)
RESERVED ON : 09.08.2021
DECIDED ON: 17.08.2021
These petitions coming on for orders this day,
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, passed the following:
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:53:33 :::CIS
-5-
ORDER
All these writ petitions have been filed with prayer to
quash allotments, of following retail sale outlets for petroleum
.
products (for short "outlet"), made by respondents No. 2 and 3 (for
short "IOC"):
(i) in favour of respondents No.4 and 5 (for short "Agro
Industries") at Village Bohan, Tehsil Jawalamukhi, District,
Kangra Himachal Pradesh in CWP No. 3338 of 2020 and
CWP No. 4239 of 2020.
(ii) In favour of Shri. Satwant Singh (Respondent No. 4) in
CWP 2703 of 2020 in Mohal Thara, Sub Tehsil Dulehar,
District Una, Himachal Pradesh
2. Petitioners in CWP No.4239 of 2020 and CWP. 2703 of
2020 themselves are retail outlet dealers of Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Limited (HPCL), whereas petitioner in CWP No.3338 of
2020 has filed the petition as pro bono publico.
3. Since common questions of facts and law are involved
in all the petitions, therefore, these were heard together and are
being disposed of by a common judgment.
4. The common case of the petitioners in all the petitions
is that the allotment of outlets by IOC in favour of Agro Industries
and Shri Satwant Singh are in violation of the guidelines framed by
Indian Roads Congress (IRC) and Ministry of Road Transport and
Highways (MoRTH).
5. It is not in dispute that the outlet, in CWP No. 3338 of
2020 and CWP No. 4239 of 2020, is being established on a plot of
.
land adjacent to road leading from Jawalamukhi to Dehra in District
Kangra and outlet in CWP No.2703 of 2020 is being established
adjacent to Ajoli Mod to Pohlian via Tahliwal road in District Una.
Both these roads are Major District Roads (MDRs) declared by
Government of Himachal Pradesh.
6. Petitioners contend that IRC has framed guidelines for
access, location and layout of road side fuel stations and service
stations (third revision) 2009. Similarly, MoRTH has also formulated
and issued guidelines for grant of permissions for construction of
access to fuel stations, way side amenities, private properties, rest
area complexes, connecting roads and such other
facilitates/establishments. The latest of such guidelines have been
circulated on 26th June, 2020 and prior thereto were the guidelines
framed in 2013, which were almost the same in material particulars.
Petitioners have maintained that IOC while making allotment in
question has not adhered to the requirements of these guidelines
and in absence thereof the allotment is vitiated.
7. In CWP No.3338 of 2020, petitioner has taken
exception to allotment of outlet in favour of Agro Industries on the
grounds:
(i) As per above guidelines issued by IRC and MoRTH the
distance between 1000 meters to 300 meters is
.
required to be maintained from the intersection of
NHs/SHs/ MDRs, whereas in the present case it is
about 70 meters approximately.
(ii) The requisite distances from the intersections of
National Highway and also from a Village Road have not
been considered and applied.
(iii) The allotment has been made without issuing
advertisement of proposed allotment,
(iv) In addition, the petitioners in CWP No.4239 of 2020 and
CWP No. 2703 of 2020 have raised the contention
that the requisite distance between the two retail sale
outlets i.e., one of the petitioners and the others
allotted by IOC to Agro Industries and Shri Satwant
Singh has not been maintained.
8. In replies submitted by IOC in all the petitions, the
allegations with respect to non-maintenance of requisite distances
from intersections, National Highways, other approach roads and
also between two retail sale outlets have not been specifically
denied. Thus, the averments with respect to violation of IRC and
MoRTH guidelines remain unrebutted in pleadings.
9. IOC, however, has taken a specific stand that IRC
guidelines are non-statutory hence, these are neither applicable nor
enforceable and the MoRTH guidelines are applicable only to the
National Highways. In this manner respondents have denied
.
relevance of said guidelines in the facts of the case and have sought
the dismissal of the petitions.
10. Respondents have also confronted the locus and bona
fides of petitioners to challenge the allotments.
11.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
have also gone through the records.
12.
In light of respective stands of parties, the question that
arises for determination is, whether the guidelines issued by IRC
and/or MoRTH are applicable to the cases in hand and if the answer
is in affirmative, then are the allotments vitiated for non-adherence
to the guidelines?
13. Coming to the first question, it goes without saying that
infrastructural development is an important aspect in the
development of any Nation. Construction of new roads/highways
and upgradation of old ones in our country is the need of the hour to
cope up with ever growing human population and resultant traffic
needs. Constantly developing road/ traffic control technologies
require the roads/highways to be as less congested as can be. The
laudable purpose is public safety.
14. The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) is
a ministry of the Government of India, that is the apex body for formulation
and administration of the rules, regulations and laws relating to road
.
transport, transport research and in also to increase the mobility and
efficiency of the road transport system in India. The Indian Roads
Congress (IRC) is the Apex Body of Highway Engineers in the Country. It
influences the pace, structure and pattern of development. Hence,
development of this sector is of paramount importance for India and
15.
r to
accounts for a significant part in the budget.
Perusal of guidelines issued by IRC as well as MoRTH
reveal that both have been issued with the above noted purpose and
object. Noticeably, no substantial conflict exists between both the
guidelines as far as prescribed parameters are concerned. Their
conceptual origin may differ, but these operate in the same realm.
The IRC guidelines are applicable to National Highways, State
Highways and MDRs. The MoRTH guidelines, though, have been
framed for National Highways, but various states have adopted
these guidelines as guiding factor. These guidelines, however, are
not area specific and are applicable throughout India.
16. At the hearing of the matter also entire thrust of
arguments on behalf of IOC was on non-applicability of the IRC and
- 10 -
MoRTH guidelines to the cases in hand. It was urged with much
vehemence that IRC guidelines has no statutory recognition and
MoRTH guidelines were applicable only to National Highways. In
support of its contention, IOC has placed reliance upon a judgment
.
passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for
Orissa at Cuttack in DB writ petition (Civil) (PIL) No.12434 and 1869
of 2020 and also on a judgment passed by Hon'ble Madras High
Court in writ petition Nos. 19218, 2661, 3678 and 705 of 2019. In
17.
r to
addition, reliance has been placed on a judgment passed by learned
Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 5719 of 2010.
With due deference to all these judgments relied upon
by IOC, we do not concur with respondents on their applicability to
the facts of the cases in hand. All the above referred judgments
have been passed keeping in view their own facts and
circumstances. Hon'ble Orissa High Court while dealing with the
facts of the case before it has held as under: -
"In view of such position, the No Objection
Certificate (NOC) granted by the Collector and
District Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur, is well within its
domain and, as such, the same was issued after
making proper inquiry and by following due
procedure established by law. Accordingly, issue
No. (i) is answered in affirmative and against the
petitioners.
Hon'ble Madras High Court in para 47 of the Judgment has held as
under: -
- 11 -
"it is no doubt true that sufficient though
process has gone into before framing 2009
guidelines. However, we are not express to State
that the guidelines are far superior then the statutory
provisions or the statutory provisions are far
superior then the guidelines. Admittedly, 10 years
have passed by, after guidelines were published.
.
There have been various developments in the
country in so far as road infrastructure is concerned.
Several methodologies have been adopted by both
State Highways and National Highways Authority of
India. Therefore, we are of the clear view that no
direction can be issued to the respondents by
compelling them to follow the guidelines of the
Indian Road Congress (IRC) published in the year
2009."
18.
The perusal of judgment passed by learned Single
Judge of this Court in CWP No. 5719 of 2010 reveals that, the
observation made by learned Single Judge was mere obiter as was
not preceded by any discussion on the point. Moreover, applicability
of MoRTH guidelines was not considered in that case.
19. The petitioners on the other hand have placed reliance
on judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Oil
Corporation Limited and others vs. Aarti Devi Dangi and
another (2016) 15 SCC 480. In our considered view the issue
germane in the present petitions finds answer in the above noted
judgment. It has been held by their Lordships as under: -
7. "If the clauses in the advertisement required a
tenderer to fulfil all requirements under the rules
and sub-rules of PWD and if what was
- 12 -
suggested/recommended by IRC has been adopted
by the State PWD and the said norms are in the
interest of public safety and would facilitate smooth
movement of traffic, it will be difficult to hold that
the rules and sub-rules of PWD contemplated in the
advertisement do not embrace the IRC Guidelines
either because there was no specific mention
.
thereof in the tender documents or the same do not
have a statutory flavour. We, therefore, hold that
the fulfillment of the requirements spelt out by the
IRC Guidelines relevant to the present cases to be a
mandatory requirement of the tender conditions.
Coupled with the above what we find is that the
action of the appellant Corporation cannot be said
to be either arbitrary or unreasonable inasmuch as
a uniform standard has been applied to all the
applicants and in the present two appeals in
question no candidate has been found to be eligible
upon application of the said uniform standard i.e.
the IRC norms.
r The action of the appellant
Corporation, therefore, not being in any manner
arbitrary or unreasonable the power of judicial
review vested in the High Court ought to have been
exercised with due circumspection.
8. A perusal of the orders of the High Court
indicates that the only basis on which the decision
of the appellant Corporation has been faulted with
is that the IRC Guidelines are not mandatory. We
fail to see how such a view can be sustained
keeping in mind the provisions of the advertisement
quoted above; the purport and object of the said
norms; the uniform application of the same to all
the tenderers by the appellant Corporation and
above all the requirements of public interest.
9. In view of the above conclusion reached, it is
not necessary for us to consider the arguments
advanced on the question of permissibility of
deviations from tender conditions, on the
touchstone of public interest or the issue of
understanding the requirement of the IRC
Guidelines as implied terms of the tender
document".
- 13 -
20. The aforesaid decision by Hon'ble Supreme Court was
in the context of adoption of IRC guidelines by State of Madhya
Pradesh. The respondents in the present case have not placed on
record any material to suggest that the State of Himachal Pradesh
.
has excluded the applicability of Indian Roads Congress (IRC)
guidelines. As noted above, we have already observed that the
Indian Roads Congress (IRC) guidelines by themselves do not
restrict the area of operation.
21.
There is sufficient material on record to suggest that the
Public Works Department in the State of Himachal Pradesh has
even adopted the MoRTH guidelines for the purpose in question.
The petitioners have placed on record a document issued by
Assistant Engineer, Nurpur Sub Division, HPPWD, which reads as
under:-
"Date-24/09/2020
Mr. Lakshay Mahajan
Nurpur, Himachal
TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN
The guidelines/norms for Major District road (MDR)
for access permission to Fuel Station in the State of Himachal
Pradesh are followed same as the 'guidelines/norms for access
permission to Fuel Station along National Highway' as issued by
Ministry of 'Road Transport and Highways, Government of India.
Sd/-
Assistant Engineer
Nurpur Sub Division
H.P.PWD Nurpur".
- 14 -
22. In addition, Learned Senior Advocate representing IOC,
at the time of addressing arguments, has also placed on record a
letter received by IOC from Executive Engineer, Dehra HPPWD
Dehra which reads as under: -
.
"HIMACHAL PRADESH
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
NO.:PWD/CB/WA/NOC/2021-22:-3581 DATED:- 05/08/2021
To
The Divisional Retail Sales Head
L.O.C. Shimla, Divisional Office,
Shimla (H.P.)
Subject:-
No objection certificate.
Reference:- Your office letter No. Shimla DO/RO-NOC/HPAICL-
r BOHAN Dated 04/08/2021.
With reference to letter referred above on the subject
cited above it is submitted that No Objection Certificate has
already been issued to Addl. District Magistrate, Kangra at
Dharamshala, vide this office letter No.20715-16 dated 02/01/2020
as per rules. The MoRTH Guidelines followed for layout
purpose of Retail outlet/Fuel Station.
DA/Nil
Executive Engineer
Dehra Division HP.PWD.
Dehra."
23. From above noted material, it becomes clear that the
Public Works Department of the Government of Himachal Pradesh
has been following IRC and also the MoRTH guidelines. Thus, we
have no hesitation to answer the first question in affirmative as in
our considered view IRC and MoRTH guidelines are applicable to
- 15 -
the case in hand.
24. We have another reason to hold so. The absence of the
applicability of any of such guidelines shall lead to chaotic condition.
The State Highways and MDRs or for that matter any other road(s)
.
are the lifelines of State and by allowing the establishment of fuel
stations or any other structure at the whims and fancies of
individuals will result catastrophically. Most of the National Highways
available in the State of Himachal Pradesh today, were either State
Highways or MDRs during yesteryears.
25. Respondents IOC being instrumentality of the State is
under legal obligation to act with reasonableness to avoid arbitrary
rule which cannot be countenanced in any developed legal system.
26. To support the stand of IOC, Shri Shrawan Dogra
Learned Senior Advocate has also made endeavor to persuade us
by making reference to judgments passed in AIR 1951 SC 69, 1972
(3) SCC 684, 1973 (1) SCC 726, 1977(1)SCC 750, 2010(1) SCC
756. These judgments deal with principles of interpretation of
statutes, which in our considered opinion, will not help the cause of
respondents in present cases.
27. As far as the second ancillary question is concerned,
we must observe that the violations of IRC and MoRTH guidelines,
as alleged by the petitioners, have neither been specifically denied
- 16 -
nor refuted or controverted by placing on record relevant
documents.
28. Interestingly, however, a copy of letter dated 2.1.2020
issued by the Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Dehra Division to the
.
Additional District Magistrate at Dharamshala purporting to be the
No Objection Certificate, has been placed on record on behalf of
IOC. The contents of this letter reveal that the purported NOC was
issued in compliance only of H.P. Road Side Control Act and H.P.
Road Infrastructure Protection Act. There was no reference in the
said letter with respect to adherence, if any, either to IRC or MoRTH
guidelines. A reading of the contents of letter dated 2.1.2020 issued
by Executive Engineer; Dehra HPPWD Dehra will be relevant here.
The letter read as under: -
HIMACHAL PRADESH
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
NO.:PWD/CB/WA/NOC/2019-20:- 20715-16 Dated:- 2/1/2020
To
The Addl. District Magistrate,
Kangra at Dharamshala
Subject:- No objection certificate.
Reference Your office letter No.609-14 dated 10/12/2019.
As per the report of Assistant Engineer Sub Division
HPPWD Jawalamukhi it is submitted that the proposed land for
construction of retail outlet falls in Khasra No.723/2/3 at location
village Bohan Tehsil Dehra Distt. Kangra on Jawalamukhi Dehra
Jawali Raja Ka Talab road (MDR-80) and at RD 0/706. This
department has not objection if the construction work is done at a
- 17 -
distance of 5 mtrs. away from the acquired width of PWD road/in
accordance with the provisions of road side control Act and H.P.
road infrastructure Protection Act.
DA/Nil.
Executive Engineer
Dehra Division HP.PWD.
Dehra
.
Copy to the Assistant Engineer, Sub -Division HPPWD
Jawalamukhi w.r.t. his office letter No.4903 dated 18/12/2019 for
information.
Executive Engineer,
Dehra Division HP. PWD
Dehra
29. Thus, It
can be inferred from the conduct
respondents as well as material on record especially letter dated
2.1.2020 written by the Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Dehra, District
of
Kangra to Additional District Magistrate, Kangra, that while allotting
the outlets in question, aforesaid guidelines were not followed.
30. Learned Senior Advocate representing IOC, at the
hearing of the case, has submitted with vehemence that IOC was
bound only by the brochure brought out for selection of dealers
which was the only magna carta for them. A copy of such brochure
has also been placed on record at the time of hearing. Perusal of
the contents of this document we have not found anything pertinent
to the issues raised in present petition. The brochure relied upon by
IOC is the internal document of the Nationalized Oil Companies i.e.,
Indian Oil, Bharat Petroleum and Hindustan Petroleum which deals
- 18 -
only with the process for selection of dealers of these companies. It
nowhere deals with any requirement to follow the laws/rules, if any,
with respect to the maintenance of safe traffic and other allied issues
including the rules applicable for development of infrastructure. To
.
the contrary, we found the requirement of filing affidavits by non-
individual applicant at the appendix X-B of this document and in this
affidavit one of the requirements to be mentioned is in following
terms: -
"4. That on
to behalf of the
Society*/Company*/Charitable Trust* undertake that we will
observe all the relevant guidelines with regard to award/operation
of the said dealership issued by Indian Oil Corporation*/Bharat
Registered
Petroleum Corporation*/Hindustan Petroleum Corporation*
/Government of India or any other statutory body from time to
time."
In light of above discussion, the second question is also answered in
affirmative.
31. The petitioners have also alleged that the allotment is
bad as the same has been made without publishing it for the notice
of the General Public. The contention of petitioners in this behalf
deserves to be rejected. The IOC has specifically maintained that
vide its policy circulars issued from time to time the criteria for
allotment of retail outlet dealership to Government
- 19 -
Body/Organization is permissible without resorting to advertisement
route. The stand of the respondents in this behalf is substantiated
by the documents placed by them on record.
32. As regards the contention of respondents that the
.
petitions are not bona fide and the petitioners have no locus to file
the petitions. In our view, if in exercise of jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, material abrasion of rules and
serious dereliction in discharge of its public duties by public authority
are discovered, the objections as to locus etc. pales into
insignificance. Even otherwise, nothing has been brought on record
to show that petitioner in CWP No.4239 of 2020 had any vested
interest in filing and prosecuting the petition. Similarly, the cause of
petitioners in CWP No.3338 of 2020 and CWP No.2703 of 2020
cannot be said to be without any substance as these are existing
fuel dealer in the vicinity and its rights are definitely going to be
affected by non-adherence to rules by respondents.
33. All the petitions are therefore allowed. The allotments
of retail sale outlets of petroleum products by IOC in favour of H.P
.Agro Industries at Village Bohan, Tehsil Jwalamukhi, District
Kangra, Himachal Pradesh and in favour of Shri Satwant Singh at
Mohal Thara, Sub Tehsil Dulehar, District Una, Himachal Pradesh
are quashed. Respondent IOC is directed to make allotment, if any,
- 20 -
in the same villages/places/location or at any other place after strict
adherence to the prescribed rules viz., the rules/ guidelines framed
by Indian Roads Congress (IRC) and/or Ministry of Road Transport
and Highways (MoRTH) and all other statutory/legal applicable
.
requirements. The petitions are accordingly disposed of so also the
miscellaneous applications, if any, with no orders as to costs.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
Judge
17th August, 2021
to (Satyen Vaidya)
Judge
tarun
