SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Chh) 422

2006 (3) C.G.L.J. 582
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
S.R. Nayak, D.R. Deshmukh, J.
Badri Prasad Verma
vs
Union of India (Uoi) And Ors.
Writ Petition No. 2684 of 2006
Decided On: 31/8/2006

Public Interest Litigation should address substantive injury to public interest involving a large number of people and should not be misused for extraneous considerations or to serve the interests of the mover's relatives.

Headnote:

Public Interest Litigation - Rural Retail Outlet/Petrol Pump - [No specific Act-Section referenced] - The court emphasized the need for circumspection and accountability in invoking Public Interest Litigation, highlighting that it should address substantive injury to public interest involving a large number of people. The court also emphasized that PIL should not be misused for extraneous considerations or to serve the interests of the mover's relatives. The court held that not every irregularity or violation in government grants/permissions can be a valid ground for PIL, and aggrieved applicants have legal remedies available to them.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a writ petition alleging that the 7th respondent had changed the site and started construction to open a rural retail outlet/petrol pump at a different location than originally granted permission.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner had filed the Public Interest Litigation for extraneous considerations and to help his own relative, and dismissed the writ petition. The court also held that there was no merit in the allegations made against the 7th respondent.

Issues: Misuse of Public Interest Litigation, Alleged irregularity in granting outlet, Valid grounds for Public Interest Litigation

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for circumspection and accountability in invoking Public Interest Litigation, highlighting that it should address substantive injury to public interest involving a large number of people. The court also emphasized that PIL should not be misused for extraneous considerations or to serve the interests of the mover's relatives. The court held that not every irregularity or violation in government grants/permissions can be a valid ground for PIL, and aggrieved applicants have legal remedies available to them.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with no costs.

ORDER

S.R. Nayak, C.J.

1. This petitioner namely Badri Prasad Verma s/o Dhanu Ram Verma claiming to be a pro bono public character, has filed this writ petition to espouse the public cause. It is complained that though the 7th respondent herein has been granted permission to open rural retail outlet/petrol pump at Pallari-Arang Road, but, in connivance with the officers of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, the 3rd respondent herein has changed the site and started construction to open the outlet at National Highway No. 9, Raipur Road. So alleging, the petitioner has sought for writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order appointing the 7th respondent as dealer for retail outlet/petrol pump and for a direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to open the retail outlet/petrol pump at Pallari-Arang Road in terms of the advertisement annexed to the writ petition as Annexure P-1. This Court having entertained the writ petition on 3-7-2006, directed notice rule nisi. On service of notice, returns are filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 3, 6 and 7. In the return filed by respondent No. 3 Corporation, it is stated that the 3rd respondent had called for applications to grant outlet at Pallari-Arang Road. In Paras 3 and 4 of the return of the 3rd respondent, it is stated thus:

(3) The respondent No. 3 has advertised and granted retail outlet at Pallari. Pallari is a municipality having population of approximate 10,000 and it is rural market for the purpose of petrol and diesel and keeping in view the need of residents of Pallari Nagary Panchayat area, it was decided to have a retail outlet at Pallari. The advertisement was for location Pallari (Arang Road). The idea was to put up RO in the rural market of Pallari which also covers the stretch from Gram Pallari to Arang Road. As per this, all the 09 applicants who came for interview, were considered by the independent Selection Committee and marks were duly awarded to each applicant without discrimination by the independent Selection Committee as per guideline who had shown availability of land at Pallari and from Pallari to Arang Road. During interview, the applicant, Miss Anuradha Khute had shown land papers (Sale Deed of 2002) of the subject site at Gram Pallari, Kh No. 832 Part, jointly owned by her and her brother, for which marks were given to her accordingly. The construction of the Petrol pump is taking place on this selected site. Thus, it is incorrect to state that the location has been changed as per the convenience of the applicant. Besides, the subject site is not on National Highway as incorrectly mentioned in the petition.

(4) It is not Pallari-Arang Road. The petitioner is unnecessarily stressing on the location as Pallari-Arang Road. The object behind establishment of the petrol pump/retail outlet is to cater the needs of the residents of the Village Pallari which is the Nagar Panchayat area and which is being constructed by the respondent No. 7 within the municipal limits of Pallari. The some part of Arang Road is also within the municipal limits of Nagar Panchayat Pallari. The selection of the site at Pallari is strictly as per advertisement and there is no deviation from the advertisement issued by the respondent No. 3. The present location will even otherwise be very approachable for the residents of Pallari. The petitioner has incorrectly mentioned that the subject site is on the National Highway, it is not on National Highway but it is within the municipal limits of Pallari. Therefore the petitioner's contention that it is being established in the National Highway No. 9 is incorrect and contrary to the record.

2. In Para 3.E of the return of the 7th respondent, it is stated thus:

3.E. That Shri Kuldeepak Verma was very much interested that Bharat Petroleum should give petrol pump dealership to one of his relative to Pratima Verma wife of Pooran Lal Verma who is Nephew of Kool Deepak Verma. She is also member of Janpad Parishad. Her name is just after Anuradha Kh



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top