Himachal Pradesh High Court
M/S Kalka Filling Station vs August on 6 September, 2021
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Satyen Vaidya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 6th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 847 OF 2021
Between:-
M/S KALKA FILLING STATION,
NH-22, SECTOR-2, PARWANOO,
DISTRICT SOLAN, H.P. THROUGH
ITS PARTNER SHRI NIKUNJ
SINGAL, S/O SHRI CHANDER MOHAN
SINGAL, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO.189,
SECTOR-25, PANCHKULA (HARYANA)
r ....PETITIONER
(BY SH. AJAY SHARMA, SR. ADVOCATE
WITH MR. AJAY THAKUR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM
& NATURAL GASES,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
NEW DELHI.
2. M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,
30779/3, JOSEPH BROS, TITO MARG
SECTOR-3, SADIQ NAGAR,
NEW DELHI, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SOLAN
DISTRICT SOLAN, H.P.
4. THE CHIEF DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES
MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION
LTD., SHIMLA DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SDA
COMPLEX, KASUMPATI,
SHIMLA-171009.
5. THE REGIONAL MANAGER,
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,
SHIMLA AREA OFFICE, BLOCK NO.21,
SDA COMPLEX, KASUMPATI,
SHIMLA-171009.
..RESPONDENTS
(MR. VIR BAHADUR VERMA,
ADVOCATE FOR R-1,
.
MR ASHOK SHARMA A.G WITH
MR. R.S. DOGRA, SR. ADDL.
A.G., MR. VINOD THAKUR,
ADDL. A.G. AND MR.
BHUPINDER THAKUR, DY. A.G.
FOR R-3 &
MR. K.D. SOOD, SR. ADVOCATE
WITH MR. HET RAM THAKUR,
ADVOCATE FOR R-2, R-4 AND
R-5.)
________________________________________________________________________
This petition coming on for orders this day, Hon'ble Mr. Justice
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, passed the following:
r ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the issue in
question is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in
CWP No. 4239 of 2020 titled as M/s Aditya H.P. Centre vs. Union of
India and others along-with connected matters, decided on 17th
August, 2021. This fact has not been disputed even by the respondents
and the only defence taken is that there is no bar or any prohibition to
open a retail outlet at 30 meters distance from the existing retail outlet
on non NH (National Highways) sites and site selection criteria as
mentioned in para 6. The relevant portion of reply filed on behalf of
respondents No. 2, 4 and 5 is reproduced as under:-
"8. The allegations made in para 8 of the petition as stated are
not admitted. It is submitted that is no bar or any prohibition to
open a retail outlet at 30 mtr. Distance from the existing retail
outlet on non NH (National Highways) sites and site selection
criteria as mentioned in para 6. Any new retail outlet is opened
to protect commercial interests of the Corporation and further
to add value added services to the customers vis. CNG facility
which is not available in the area causing inconvenience to the
CNG customers. Annexures P-5 is the site report which was
submitted by the Rural Revenue Officer."
.
2. It is specific case of the petitioner that the respondents intend to
open a retail outlet at a distance of 30 meters from the existing outlet
of the petitioner, therefore, the issue in question is squarely covered in
favour of the petitioner by the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP
No. 4239 of 2020 titled as M/s Aditya H.P. Centre vs. Union of
India and others along-with connected matters, decided on 17th
August, 2021, which is no more res-integra.
3. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and respondents No. 2,
4 and 5 are restrained from opening retail petroleum outlet at the
place in question, However, this order shall not come in the way of
respondents, in case they choose to open a retail outlet at some other
site. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
Judge
September 06, 2021 ( Satyen Vaidya )
(naveen) Judge
