WPMS/468/2018
2021 Latest Caselaw 2121 UK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
           AT NAINITAL
         ON THE 29THDAY OF JUNE, 2021
                         BEFORE:
 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
       Writ Petition (M/S) No. 468 of 2018
BETWEEN:
Smt. Harpreet Kaur                         ...Petitioner

     (None present for the petitioner)

AND:

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
Ltd.                                       ...Respondent

     (None present for the respondent)

                       JUDGMENT

1. Petitioner applied for Retail Outlet Dealership pursuant to an advertisement issued by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Petitioner's application was rejected by Senior Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Dehradun vide order dated 20.07.2017 on the ground that the land offered by the petitioner for establishing retail outlet is not suitable for the purpose, as there was an intersection with the road going to a village at less than 300 meters from the site at which petitioner had offered the land.

2. This writ petition was filed on 21.02.2018 and a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.08.2018 directed for issuance of notice to the respondent.

3. As per Office report, steps have not been taken by the petitioner in terms of the order dated

09.08.2018, therefore, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent - HPCL till today.

4. More than three years have gone by since filing of the writ petition. This Court can take judicial notice of the fact that the Retail Outlet Dealership, for which advertisement was issued, must have been granted to some other applicant, who is not before this Court. The writ petition, if decided in favour of the petitioner would adversely affect the interest of such person, who is not before this Court.

5. Even otherwise also, there is no serious challenge in the writ petition to the ground taken for rejecting petitioner's application, and the only averment that has been made against said ground is that it is arbitrary and unreasonable.

6. In such view of the matter, this Court thinks that any interference with the impugned order dated 20.07.2017 at this belated stage would be unwarranted.

7. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.) Aswal