Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Madan Lal vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 15 February, 2024
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:8104]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9814/2023
Madan Lal S/o Shri Nanuram Suthar, Aged About 54 Years, R/o
Village Thala Tehsil Raipur District Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Public
Works Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department,
Bhilwara.
3. The District Collector, Bhilwara.
4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Karera, District Bhilwara.
5. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Through Its Director
Marketing Divisional Officer, Indian Oil Bhawan, Plot No
1162-63, Sector No 11, Hiran Magri, Udaipur.
6. Smt Ladiben Kumawat W/o Shri Gehrilal Patel, Navi Pardi,
Kathor, District Surat, State Gujrat.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Govind Suthar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. AR Godara
Mr. Nishant Bora
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
15/02/2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed against the
establishment of a fuel station at the site proposed by respondent
No.6.
3. Briefly noted the facts in the matter are that the petitioner is
having a fuel station at Village Thala, Tehsil Rajpur, District
[2024:RJ-JD:8104] (2 of 3) [CW-9814/2023]
Bhilwara and by way of the present writ petition, the petitioner
has challenged the establishment of a fuel station at Gangapur
Chowraha to Borana on State Highway 75, Taluka Raipur, District
Bhilwara.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that
the fuel station of the petitioner is located at a distance of
nearabout 4-5 Kms. from the fuel station which is being
established by the private respondent No.6. He submits that there
are gross violation of the guidelines issued by the Indian Road
Congress as well as the guidelines of Ministry of Road, Transport &
Highways. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the respondent
No.6 may be restrained from establishing the fuel station.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.6,
while opposing the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has got no locus to file
the writ petition with the prayers made herein on the ground that
the petitioner is a business competitor and his fuel station is
located at a distance of about 4-5 Kms from the fuel station of the
respondent No.6.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents have relied upon a
judgment of co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.4833/2021 "M/s. Jhinjha Filling Station
Vs. Union of India & Ors." decided on 18.08.2023. Learned
counsel, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be dismissed.
7. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have
gone through the relevant record of the case including the
judgment rendered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of M/s Jhinjha Filling Station (supra).
[2024:RJ-JD:8104] (3 of 3) [CW-9814/2023]
8. On a pointed query being raised by the Court to the learned
counsel for the petitioner with respect to the locus standi of the
petitioner in the present case, he very fairly submits that in
identical situation, the judgment has been rendered by the
co-ordinate Bench on 18.08.2023 and the writ petition has been
dismissed on the ground of petitioner having no locus to file the
writ petition. In the present case also, the petitioner has failed to
make out a case of having any locus to file the present writ
petition with the prayers made herein.
9. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition is
dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has no locus standi to
file the present writ petition.
10. Stay application as well as other pending applications, if any,
shall stand disposed of.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
224-/Vivek/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
