Compliance with regulations under the MORTH Act, the authority of MORTH to grant approvals, and the responsibility of the Government of Pondicherry in forwarding proposals to MORTH.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.

2. W.P.No.5023 of 2010 has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent, viz., the Deputy Collector [Revenue], Government of Pondicherry, by which the first respondent has directed the Senior Divisional Retail Manager of Indian Oil Corporation, viz., the second respondent, to de-energise the retail outlet of Indian Oil Corporation Limited at Melavanjore, Karaikal.

3. It is seen that for the purpose of commencing a petroleum outlet as per the Rules prescribed, the petitioner in W.P.No.5023 of 2010 has made an application on 20.6.2005 through the second respondent, to the Government of Pondicherry, and the Government, through the Sub Divisional Magistrate, has issued a No Objection Certificate [NOC] on 22.11.2005 to the effect that they have no objection for giving permission to the writ petitioner to open a petroleum outlet of Indian Oil Corporation, however, subject to various conditions. One such conditions is that a separate approval and NOC should be obtained from the Ministry of Surface, Road Transport & Highways, [in short 'MORTH'], viz., the third respondent, since the outlet which is the subject matter of dispute in this writ petition, is at a location which is adjacent to NH-45A.

4. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that, based on the said NOC issued by the Government of Pondicherry, the petitioner has put up construction, even though no permission was obtained from the third respondent/MORTH, and running the petroleum outlet in the said place. It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the first respondent is without giving any opportunity to him, especially when the application made by him to the third respondent MORTH, New Delhi, is lying with the first respondent itself, thus preventing the third respondent to grant NOC as per the conditions stipulated by the NOC issued by the Government of Pondicherry. Therefore, without even forwarding the proposal to the third respondent, the first respondent has arbitrarily passed the order de-energising the retail outlet run by the petitioner, which virtually amounts to closing the dealership.

5. It is pending the said writ petition that Writ Appeal No.2745 of 2010 came to be filed by another dealer in the same area in R.S.Nos.73/1A1 and 73/1A at No.37, Vanjore Revenue Village, T.R.Pattinam, Karaikkal, on the ground that she had also been granted NOC by the Government of Pondicherry on 26.03.2004, based on which she has put up the construction and running the retail outlet of the Indian Oil Corporation. It is now stated that in the year 2008, the 4th respondent, Government of India, has also granted approval to the said appellant and therefore, she has been running the retail outlet in a legal manner. The said appellant has filed application in W.P. No.5023 of 2010 to implead herself as a party to the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner in the said writ petition has been running the retail outlet in the most illegal manner, the construction having been put up without obtaining approval from the third respondent, Government of India; that the conditions stipulated by the Government of Pondicherry while granting NOC dated 22.11.2005 to the said writ petitioner have not been scrupulously followed by him and that the writ petitioner has been running the retail outlet illegally, which ultimately affected the business of the aforesaid appellant to a large extent, and therefore, in order to assist the Court in informing the illegality committed by the writ petitioner, she has filed an application for impleading herself and that impleading application came to be dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 24.9.2010 on the ground that she has no locus standi, against which, she has filed the above said writ appeal.

6. Similarly, the petitioner in W.P.No.5128 of 2010, M/s.Bharat Petroleum Limited has challenged a s