Point of Law : In view of criteria for making a feasibility study provided in letter not being applicable for opening a new Rural RO and as no legal or fundamental right of the petitioner has been infringed.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Roy, learned CGC for the respondent nos.1 & 2; Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and Mr. P. Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 & 5.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the feasibility report dated 15.11.2018, on the basis of which Notice dated 25.11.2018 was published, for appointment of a Rural Retail Outlet (RO) dealer by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. The retail outlet (petrol pump) that was to be set up was at Salbari – Jogighopa Road, between NH17 intersection and Balapara Post Office, which is in close proximity to the petitioner’s petrol pump

3. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner has a petrol pump in the said area in the name of M/s Rubi Kisan Seva Kendra. He submits that for opening up of a new retail outlet, the Government of India, Ministry of Petrol and Natural Gas had issued guidelines/criteria to be followed by Oil Manufacturing Companies vide letter No. P-19011/5/2010-IOC dated 06.04.2011, addressed to the Chief Executive Officers of the three Oil Manufacturing Companies (OMCs), i.e. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Indian Oil Corporation. In terms of the said letter dated 06.04.2011, a feasibility study was to be made by Oil Manufacturing companies for opening new retail outlets wherein, they were to consider the appropriate returns/financial viability of the new retail outlet. He submits that as per the letter dated 06.04.2011, a oil manufacturing company may work out a mechanism where the ED (Retail) of the three OMCs, may decide by consensus, on expansion of network in new areas like developing suburbs in cities, new highways, road bypass etc. He submits that though the respondent No. 3 has issued a notice for opening a new RO in a Rural area near the location of the petitioner’s petrol pump, in terms of the feasibility report dated 15.11.2018 and the Notice dated 25.11.2018, the said feasibility report does not make a mention of the petitioner’s petrol pump. He submits that the feasibility report had been made after considering two petrol pumps, which were at a further distance from the petitioner’s petrol pump. As such, the respondent No. 3 should be directed to make a new feasibility report, in which the petitioner’s petrol pump should be considered and thereafter, consider if it would be feasible to have a new RO.

4. Mr. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel submits that in terms of letter dated 06.04.2011 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, the feasibility report to be made by an OMC to open a new RO required that all the neighbouring ROs should be considered. However, the respondent no.3 has not considered the petitioner’s petrol pump, which is in close proximity of the new RO to be opened in pursuance to the notice dated 25.11.2018, while on the other hand, the respondent no.3 had considered two petrol pumps, one belonging to IOC and the other belonging to HPCL, while making the feasibility report. He submits that either the respondent no.3 fully complies with the letter dated 06.04.2011 or does not comply with it at all.

5. Mr. P. Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 submits that the petitioner’s retail outlet was not taken into consideration by the respondent No. 3, while making the feasibility report dated 15.11.2018.

6. Mr. P. Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the respondent nos.4 & 5 submits that there is no set mechanism, procedure or practice for sharing the feasibility report made by one OMC with another OMC or seeking comments and clearance or objections from the other OMCs. He also submits that the impugned feasibility report made by the respondent no.3 had not been referred to the respondent nos.4 & 5 for comments, since it is an internal document of the respondent no.3. The counsel for the respondent nos.4 &