Harsha Chauhan vs Chariman And M.D. Hindustan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5717 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4592/2018

Harsha Chauhan W/o Hemant Chauhan, Resident Of House No. 21 Kala Ji Colony, Near Gulab Bagh, Udaipur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The Chairman And Managing Director, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 17 Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra.

2. The Chief Regional Manager, Jodhpur Regional Office, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur.

3. Seema Kanwar w/o Mahipal Singh, aged 28 years, resident of near Canal, Bodigama, District Banswara, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Sachin Acharya, Sr. Adv., assisted by Mr. Chayan Bothra For Respondent(s) : Mr Sunil Beniwal, AAG assisted by Mr. Shailendra Gwala Mr. Vineet Dave (for private respondent)

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Judgment

Reportable

Reserved on 28/07/2023 Pronounced on 08/08/2023

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

I. The letter/order dated 10.3.2018 (Annexure-4) issued by the respondent no.2 rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for allotment of LPG distributorship at Dhariawad, district Pratapgarh may kindly be set aside and the respondents may kindly be

(2 of 18) [CW-4592/2018]

directed to allot LPG distributorship at Dhariawad, district Pratapgarh to the petitioner.

II. Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

III. Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent Hindustan

Petroleum Corporation Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as HPCL in

short) vide its advertisement dated 23.8.2017 (Annexure-R1)

invited applications to grant LPG Distributorship under various

categories and locations in the state of Rajasthan, for which the

petitioner applied for the said LPG distributorship under the

Gramin Open Category for location Dhariabad, District Pratapgarh

and thus in response to the said advertisement the petitioner

submitted an online application form dated 22.09.2017

(Annexure-1) for which the cut off date for submission of form

was 25.09.2017. The petitioner proposed/suggested land for the

LPG distributorship at Village Undawela which is 3 kms away from

the location Dhariabad as mentioned in the advertisement.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner's application was registered as

reference No.HPC12110046622092017 and through letter dated

2.12.2017, (Annexure-2) the respondent No.2 Chief Regional

Manager, Jodhpur Regional Office, HPCL informed the petitioner

that she has been found successful in the draw of lots conducted

on 1.12.2017 for selection of LPG Distributorship and was directed

to deposit an amount of Rs.40,000/- through Demand Draft/Pay

(3 of 18) [CW-4592/2018]

order in favour of HPCL and was also directed to submit certain

documents within a period of seven days from the date of

receiving the email failing which her candidature would be liable to

be rejected.

4. In pursuance to the aforesaid letter dated 2.12.2017, the

petitioner submitted letter dated 8.12.2017 (Annexure-3) along

with the requisite fees of Rupees forty thousand (DD No.182027

dated 4.12.2017) and 23 documents for the LPG distributorship,

including the No objection certificates and consent letters of joint

khatedars.

5. The respondent No. 2 Chief Regional Manager, Jodhpur

Regional Office, HPCL Vide letter dated 10.3.2018 (Annexure-4),

informed the petitioner that the petitioner's candidature had been

canceled for allotment of LPG distributorship as the respondent

conducted a field verification for the land suggested by the

petitioner located at Village Undawela and examined all the

documents submitted by the petitioner and found that the land

was in joint khatedari and the partition of the said land had also

not been done and secondly the land which the petitioner

suggested was situated at Village Undawela and not at the

proposed LPG Distributorship location Dhariabad which was

against the guidelines for selection of LPG distributorship. Further

it was mentioned in the letter that the petitioner was asked for

giving an alternate land for setting up of LPG godown but the

petitioner informed that she did not have any alternate land. Thus

as per the guidelines of the HPCL, the petitioner's candidature was

canceled.

(4 of 18) [CW-4592/2018]

6. Aggrieved by the letter dated 10.03.2018 (Annexure-4)

passed by the Chief Regional Manager, HPCL on the grounds that

the proposed land suggested by the petitioner for establishing

godown is in joint khatedari and secondly that the proposed land

suggested by the petitioner for opening the showroom is not

situated at the location Dhariabad as mentioned in the

advertisement, thus on the rejection of her candidature, the

petitioner filed the writ petition. Hence this writ petition.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

proposed land suggested by the petitioner at Village Undawela is 3

kms away from the location Dhariabad, for which the petitioner

applied for the LPG distributorship, thus, canceling the candidature

of the petitioner for allotment of LPG distributorship is not tenable

in the eye of law as the petitioner fulfilled all the conditions as per

respondent's guidelines and brochure (Annexure-5) particularly

the clause 1 (C) iii of the guidelines which provides that as

specified by oil marketing companies regarding Village

distributors, LPG distributorship will cover villages falling within 15

kms from the proposed location and clause (w) of the

guidelines/brochure issued by the respondents which provides that

if the land proposed by the petitioner is jointly owned by the

applicant's family members then a No Objection Certificate from

the joint owners in the form of a notarized affidavit be submitted

by the applicant. Clause "1 (C) iii" and Clause "w" of the

guidelines is reproduced here as under:

"1 (C) iii. ग्रामीण वितरक: इस ग्रामीण क्षेत्र शब्द की परिभाषा दस्तावेज में , 2011 की जनगणना में ग्रामीण के अनुसार होगीग्रामीण क्षेत्रमें स्थित एलपीजी डिस्ट्र ीब्यूटरशिप को ग्रामीण वितरक कहा जाएगा और यह निर्दिष्ट

(5 of 18) [CW-4592/2018]

ग्रामीण क्षेत्र के एलपीजी ग्राहकों को से वा प्रदानकरे गा । प्रायः ग्रीमण वितरक संबंधित ओएमसी द्वारा निर्दिष्ठ क्षेत्र और/अथवा एलपीजी डिस्ट्र ीब्यूटरशिप की सीमा के 15 किलोमीटरके अंदर आने वाले गां वों को कवर करता हैं ।" "w यदि जमीन आवेदक/ आवेदक के परिवार इकाई (बहु- डीलरशिप / डिस्ट्र ीब्यूटरशिप यथापरिभाषित) के नियम सदस्य/ माता-पिता में एवं दादा- दादी (मातृपक्ष एवं पितृपक्ष दोनों) या किसी अन्य व्यक्तियों के नाम संयुक्त स्वामित्व की है और आवेदक/आवेदक के परिवार के इकाई माता-पिता एवं दादा-दादी (मातृपक्ष एवं पितृपक्ष दोनों) के नाम की जमीन का हिस्सा आवश्यक डाइमेंशन सहित जमीन की आवश्यकता को पूरा करता हैं तो गोदाम एवं शोरूम की वह जमीन भी अपने जमीन के रूप में पात्रता के लिएयोग्य है , बशर्ते अन्य स्वामियों से नोटरी किये हुए शपथ पत्र के रूप में अनापति प्रमाण पत्र जमा किए जाएं ।"

8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the

petitioner submitted No Objection certificates of joint Khatedars

along with its letter dated 08.12.2017 (Annexure-2) therefore

canceling/rejecting of the petitioner's candidature for LPG

distributorship is not tenable in the eyes of law.

9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the

proposed land for godown is situated at Village Undawela, which

falls under Dhariabad panchayat samiti which can be perused from

Jamabandi (Annexure-6) of the proposed land therefore the

respondents cannot contend that the proposed land is not as per

the guidelines.

10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the

action of the respondent HPCL in not allotting LPG distributorship

to the petitioner despite of having fulfilled all the requisite

qualifications, permissions and documents is a colourable exercise

of powers, when the land of the petitioner had already been

accepted for allotment of LPG distributorship and all the

formalities had been completed thus there was no reason to reject

the candidature of the petitioner which is against the

(6 of 18) [CW-4592/2018]

guidelines/brochure issued by the respondents. He also submitted

that the refusal of allotment for LPG distributorship to the

petitioner has caused gross injustice to the petitioner and is a

violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner when there is

no plausible reason for rejecting the same.

11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that it was

mentioned in the letter dated 10.03.2018 issued by the Chief

Regional Manager, HPCL that after the field verification of the

location, an opportunity for alternate land was given to the

petitioner and thus as per the letter the petitioner informed that

the petitioner does not have an alternate land but no such

opportunity was given by the respondents and there is no

documentary evidence which shows that an opportunity was given

to the petitioner for providing an alternate land, which is violation

of clause 18) B of the guidelines which mandates that the

petitioner to be given an opportunity to provide an alternate land

for LPG distributorship.

12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the

property in question measures a total of 46 Bighas and the

requirement of size of plot as per the advertisement of the

respondent is 26x 21 sq. meters, thus, it is abundantly clear that,

even if the property in question was partitioned amongst the joint

holders, then also the share of each holder would come out to be

more than what was required as per the advertisement, thus

canceling of the candidature of the petitioner for LPG

distributorship cannot stand.

(7 of 18) [CW-4592/2018]

13. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that no

opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner and the

candidature of the petitioner for allotment of LPG distributorship

was rejected by the respondents which is dehors the

guidelines/brochures issued by the respondents.

14. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the

petitioner has fulfilled all the requisite qualifications for allotment

of LPG distributorship and all the terms and conditions of the

guidelines/brochure. He Further submitted that as per clause 1 (C)

iii of the guidelines a candidate could suggest land within 15 kms

of proposed LPG distributorship at Dhariabad and therefore the

Village Undawela is only 3 kms away from the proposed LPG

distributorship location Dhariabad and therefore the impugned

order/letter dated 10.03.2018 deserves to be quashed and set

aside.

15. Per contra the Learned counsel for the respondent State

submitted that at perusal of the advertisement dated 23.08.2017

for which the location for which the petitioner applied was

Dhariabad, the same was advertised in the Gramin Vitrak

Category for which the candidate was required to offer land for

godown/Showroom and the same was required to be within the

advertised location but In the present writ petition, the land

offered by the petitioner for showroom was to be within the limits

of Village Dhariabad and the petitioner had not offered land for

showroom in location Dhariabad and therefore his candidature was

rightly rejected.

(8 of 18) [CW-4592/2018]

16. Learned counsel for the respondent State further submitted

that the land proposed by the petitioner is at Village Undawela and

is about 3 Km from Village Dhariabad and not as per the

advertised location mentioned in the advertisement dated

23.08.2017. Therefore, the same could not have been accepted,

further submitted that the land offered by the petitioner was at

Khasra No.44/53/54/55 at Village Undawela which was examined

by the respondent Company's Officials during the field verification,

On investigation, it was revealed that the land offered by the

petitioner cannot be considered as suitable for setting up of

godown because it was a land in joint khatedari.

17. Learned counsel for the respondent State also submitted

that the same piece of land at khasra No.44/53/54/55 at Village

Undawela has been offered by Smt Harsha

Chauhan(HPC12110046622092017), Smt Anjana Chauhan

(App.No. HPC12110046722092017) and Smt Meenakshi Chauhan

(App.No. HPC12110054323092017) for the purpose of showroom

land and godown land which is violation of the unified guidelines

clause 8 (A) (m) therefore her candidature was rightly rejected as

multiple applications were received for same piece of land. The

relevant portion of the clause 8 (A) (m) of the unified guidelines

2017 is reproduced here as under:

"that the same piece of land cannot be offered by more than one

applicant for a particular location against the advertisement. In

case it is found at any stage that the same piece of land for

Showroom has been offered by more than one applicant for the

(9 of 18) [CW-4592/2018]

same location then all such applications would be rejected or if

selection has been done, then the same would be canceled"

18. Learned counsel for the respondent State further submitted

that the land offered for setting up of godown is situated in Khasra

No.44/53/54/55 in Village Undawela cannot be considered as the

same was a joint property owned by the 8 persons. The exact

dimension of the land which was proposed by the petitioner was

not demarcated and therefore even the dimension of the land

could not be verified as per the guidelines.

19. Learned counsel for the respondent State also submitted that

it was further revealed that during the field verification, dispute

was found to be pending for the land proposed by the petitioner

for LPG distributorship before the District Court Pratapgarh titled

Mani Pai Vs. Sajjan Lal bearing Case No.37/2010. Sajjan lal is one

of the joint owner of Khasra No. 44/53/54/55 in Village Undawela.

The petitioner have submitted the NOC of Hemant Chouhan S/o

Shri Ram Chandra, Dig Vijay Singh S/o Shri Ram Chandra, Mukesh

S/o Shri Ram Chandra, Vijay @Vaji, Devi w/o Shri Surendra

Mishtri, Ramesh S/o Late Shri Gordhan, Kaushalya w/o Late Shri

Kanahaiya Lal, Sunil S/o Late Shri Kanahaiya Lal, Monika D/o Shri

Kanahaiya Lal, Giriraj S/o Shri Sajjan Lal, Heman S/oShri Sajjan

Lal, Dinesh S/o Shri Sajjan Lal and therefore their NOC is of no

assistance to the petitioner to avail allotment of LPG

distributorship as the land could not be identified and verified

during field verification to comply with the guidelines & also the

land was disputed, which was not suitable for the respondent

(10 of 18) [CW-4592/2018]

corporation thus the petitioner has failed to offer the land as

required under the guidelines and therefore the same was rightly

rejected.

20. Learned counsel for the respondent State further submitted

that the land for setting up of Showroom for LPG is concerned, the

same was required to be within the boundaries of Dhariabad

whereas the petitioner's proposed land was within the boundary

limit of Village Undawela and therefore the same cannot be

considered. He further submitted that a bare perusal of the

Jamabandi which has been placed on record as Annexure-6 by the

petitioner would reveal that the land is situated at Revenue Village

Undawela, Patwar Halka, Gogiyawas, land record Halka Dhariabad,

District Pratapgarh. Thus the land as offered for showroom is not

falling within the boundaries limits of advertised location i.e.

Dhariabad as per clause No.8 (A)(n) of unified Guidelines 2017

which clearly states that the applicant should own a suitable land

in the "advertised location i.e. within the municipal town/village

limits of the place which is mentioned under the column of

'location' in the advertisement." Hence the petitioner did not meet

the eligibility criteria for suitable land for LPG showroom. He

further submitted that the petitioner herself has admitted that

village Undawela is about 3 Kms from Dhariabad and therefore the

same cannot be considered as suitable land for showroom.

21. The learned counsel for the respondent State also submitted

that false allegations were leveled by the petitioner that the

petitioner was not given the opportunity to offer alternate land

whereas an option for providing an alternate land was given to the

(11 of 18) [CW-4592/2018]

petitioner however, the petitioner expressed her inability to provide

alternate land, also there was no representation given by the

petitioner to the Respondent Corporation for providing an alternate

land by her, He further submitted that no such offer has been made

nor any documents to offer alternate land has been placed on

record. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner are

absolutely illegal, baseless and frivolous.

22. Learned Counsel for the private respondent adopted the

arguments of the AAG for State and further placed reliance on the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Swapan Kumar

Pal versus Achintya Kumar Nayak & Ors reported in (2007) 7

SCC 311. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced here

as under:

"19. In a case of this nature, ordinarily, the High Court would not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. For exercising the power of judicial review, the Court has a limited role to play. It could interfere only if any legal error has been committed in the decision making process. It could not enter into the merit of the decision."

The learned counsel for the private respondent also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case K. Vinod Kumar versus S.Palanisamy and Others reported in (2003) 6 SCC 471. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced here as under:

"7. The proceedings of the Dealer Selection Board must satisfy the requirements of a bona fide administrative decision arrived at in a fair manner. There are no mala fides alleged against the Dealer Selection Board or the President or any Member thereof. There is no specific plea raised impugning the manner of marking. It appears that all the three members of the Board including the President

(12 of 18) [CW-4592/2018]

conducted the proceedings, and each one of them gave marks expressing his own assessment of the merits of the applicants. The marks given by the three were then totaled and arranged in the order of merit. The appellant herein topped the list. In the absence of a legal particular procedure or formula having been prescribed for the Board to follow, no fault can be found with the manner in which the proceedings were conducted by the Board. The Board is entrusted with the task of finding out the best suitable candidate and, so long as the power is exercised bona fide, the Board is free to devise and adopt its own procedure subject to satisfying the test of reasonableness and fairness. There is no avernment that the procedure adopted by the Board was arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable.

11. The law is settled that over proceedings and decisions taken in administrative matters, the scope of judicial review is confined to the decision making process and does not extend to the merits of the decision taken. No infirmity is pointed out in the proceedings of the Selection Board which may have the effect of vitiating the selection process. The capability of the appellant herein to otherwise perform as an LPG distributor is not in dispute. The High Court was not, therefore, justified in interfering with the decision of the Selection Board and the decision of the BPCL to issue letter of allotment to the appellant herein."

23. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his rebuttal submitted

that to the extent that the location of Village Dhariabad was

advertised as one for 'Gramin Vitrak' category and the petitioner

applied for the said location and further that as per the OMC

Guidelines in Clause 1(c)(i), the 'Gramin Vitrak' distributorship

area has been defined as one that covers 'all villages' within the

area of 15 Kms from the boundary limits of the LPG distributorship

location. It has been admitted by the respondents also that the

petitioner's property situated at Undawela which is within 3 Kms of

(13 of 18) [CW-4592/2018]

the proposed location i.e. Dhariabad. He further submitted that ,

the definition of the term 'village' as mentioned in 1(h)

categorically mentions that a revenue village may contain several

hamlets. In the instant case, the petitioner's property is situated

in Undawela which falls within Panchayat Samiti, Dhariabad as

evident from the certificates issued by the Block Development

Officer & Panchayat Samiti, Dhariabad. Therefore, in light of

respondents guidelines, the respondents have wrongfully rejected

the petitioner's application.

24. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his rebuttal further

submitted that although the property is question has been jointly

owned by the petitioner as well as her other family members,

there is nothing in the guidelines that prohibited an applicant to

offer a land which is jointly held by her with others, as long as a

No-Objection Certificate from the other joint owners is obtained.

In the instant case, the petitioner had already submitted the No-

Objection Certificates granted by the other joint owners of the

property in question which had been accepted by the respondents

at the time of submission and verification of documents. He also

submitted that as far as not providing the demarcation and the

dimensions of the property is concerned, it is submitted that since

the entire land parcel was then jointly owned by the petitioner and

her family members, no partition had been done as respondents

never mandated the same being done. It is pertinent to mention

here that since then the property has been partitioned and the

said partition has been recorded in the latest revenue records as

well, However, such partition could have been effected but the

(14 of 18) [CW-4592/2018]

respondents, without giving the petitioner any opportunity of

hearing, rejected her application. He further submitted that in

respect to the land in question being disputed is concerned, that

on the date of rejection of the petitioner's application, there

existed no suit/dispute on the land in question. The parties to the

civil suit as mentioned by the respondents in their reply, namely

Case No. 37/2010 Mani Bai v Sajjan Lal before the District Court,

Pratapgarh are in no manner related to the petitioner, the

controversy involved in the same is regarding recovery of money

which is remotely unconnected to the property in question.

Therefore the said suit was of no consequence to the petitioner's

application. Even otherwise, the said suit had been disposed of in

December 2017.

25. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his rebuttal also

submitted that as per the Guidelines issued by the respondents,

particularly Clause 18(b) thereof, if the land offered by the

applicant is not found suitable for godown/showroom in light of

requirements set in the advertisement, the applicant may offer an

alternate land in his/family member's name, subject to verification

of the same, In the instant case, at the time of field verification, if

the respondents did not consider the land offered by the petitioner

to be suitable for the setting up of showroom, it was imperative

for the respondents to afford the petitioner an opportunity to offer

any alternative land, however, no such opportunity was granted.

26. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material

available on record and the judgments cited at the bar.

(15 of 18) [CW-4592/2018]

27. This court observes that the petitioner had submitted online

application for the location Dhariabad District- Pratapgarh under

the Gramin Vitrak Category for which she was required to offer

land for godown as well as showroom and as far as the land for

showroom is concerned, the same is required to be within the

advertised location i.e Dhariabad however, the land offered for

showroom by the petitioner is at village Undawela which is about 3

kms from village Dhariabad. As per the clause 8 (A) (n) of the

guidelines issued by the Oil Marketing companies 2017 the

requirement was that the land should be within the boundaries of

Village Dhariabad whereas the land offered by the petitioner was

within the boundaries of village Undawela. The relevant portion of

Clause 8 (A) (n) of the guidelines is reproduced here as under:

"The applicant should 'Own' a suitable shop for Showroom of minimum size 3 metre by 4.5 metre in outer dimension or a plot of land for construction of showroom of minimum size 3 metre by 4.5 metre as on the last date for submission of application as specified either in the advertisement or corrigendum (if any) at the advertised location i.e. within the municipal/town/village limits of the place which is mentioned under the column of 'location' in the advertisement."

The land for the showroom is falling in khasra No 44/53/54/55

and the Jamabandi placed on record by the petitioner (Annexure

6) reflects that the aforementioned land is falling in village

Undawela, Patwar Halka, Gogiyawas District Pratapgarh. Thus it

cannot be said that the petitioner fulfilled the condition as laid

down in clause 8 (A) (n).

28. This court further observes that during field verification of

credentials process as stated by the learned AAG for State, the

(16 of 18) [CW-4592/2018]

petitioner was given an option for providing an alternate land

however she expressed her inability to do so. However learned

Senior counsel for petitioner vehemently argued that no such offer

of optional land was given to the petitioner. Be that as it may, the

petitioner has not demonstrated by way of any document that she

was in possession of any alternate land in accordance with the

requirement laid down in the guidelines and before the cut off

date ie 25.09.2017 as laid down in the advertisement (Annexure

R/1). When petitioner's land was declared non suitable by the

respondents, the onus was upon the shoulders of the petitioner to

show that an optional land was available with her having date of

registration/lease before the last date for submission of application

as specified in the advertisement but the petitioner has failed to

demonstrate the same and therefore it cannot be said that the

respondents did not offer her the option of an alternate land.

29. This court also observes that as per the clause 8 (A) (m) if

the same piece of land is offered by more than one person then all

all the applications would be rejected and admittedly in the instant

case the piece of land at Khasra no 44/53/54/55 at Village

Undawela had been offered by Smt Harsha

Chauhan(HPC12110046622092017)(petitioner), Smt Anjana

Chauhan (App.No. HPC12110046722092017) and Smt Meenakshi

Chauhan (App.No. HPC12110054323092017) for the purpose of

showroom land and godown which is in clear violation of the

clause 8 (A) (m) and thus the application of the petitioner has

been rightly rejected. Admittedly the petitioner did not fulfill the

requirement of offering the land in the required place in

(17 of 18) [CW-4592/2018]

consonance with the clause 8 (A)(n), also did not offer the

alternate land for the LPG distributorship when she was given an

option at the time field verification of credentials process and

more than three applications were submitted including the

application of the petitioner for the same piece of land situated at

Khasra no 44/53/54/55 which was again in violation of clause 8(A)

(m) of the guidelines.

30. This court further observes that the petitioner's submission

that though the land offered by her was in joint khatedari and the

partition of the said land took place after the cut off date i.e.

25.09.2017 as laid down in the advertisement thus the submission

of the petitioner that the land should have been considered as

suitable as the partition took place is not sustainable. This Court

also observes that the petitioner's submission, that her land

situated at Village Undawela, ought to have been considered

suitable on the ground that a person can suggest the land within

15 kms of proposed LPG distributorship location at Dhariabad and

the Village Undawela is only 3 kms away from the proposed LPG

distributorship at Dhariabad, is not sustainable because as per

clause 1 (c) iii of the Unified Guidelines, 2017, under the category

of Gramin Vitrak, the retail outlet holder is required to give his

services to the villages falling within an area of 15 kms and the

guidelines do not permit the allotment of LPG

godowns/showrooms for the land situated within an area of 15

kms from the proposed location Dhariabad and therefore, the

petitioner has misinterpreted the guideline as laid down under

clause 1 (c) iii of the Unified Guidelines, 2017.

(18 of 18) [CW-4592/2018]

31. In this background and having regard to the overall facts and

circumstances of the case, the writ petition being bereft of merit is

dismissed. Stay application as well as all the other pending

applications, if any, also stand rejected.

(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J

82-/Sanjay/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)