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

2008 Supreme(Ori) 737

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Sanju Panda, I.M. Quddusi, JJ.
SMT. DAYAMAYEE PANDA - APPELLANT
Versus
UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
Writ Petition (C) Nos. 3928 of 2006 and 5016 of 2007
Decided On : 23-09-2008

Advocates Appeared:
S.P. Mishra, S. Dash, S. Mishra, S. Nanda, P. Sahu and B.S. Panigrahi, for the Appellant; S.C. Samantaray Central Govt. Counsel for Opposite Party No. 1, U.C. Behera, P. Dutta for Opposite Party No. 4, G. Mukherji, A.C. Panda, S. Patra and S.R. Patra for Opposite Party No. 5, for the Respondent

The legality of establishing a new retail outlet in close proximity to an existing one, the impact on existing businesses, and the interpretation of the provisions of the Petroleum Act, 1934, and the guidelines for petrol pump/retail outlet establishment.

Headnote:

Petrol Pump - Establishment of Retail Outlet - Petroleum Act, 1934, Section 4 - Guidelines for establishment and maintenance of Petrol Pumps/Retail outlets - The court discussed the provisions of the Petroleum Act, 1934, and the circulars issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways regulating the establishment and maintenance of petrol pumps/retail outlets. The court highlighted the criteria for the distance between two fuel stations, the provision for common access, and the legality of establishing a new outlet in close proximity to an existing one.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought to quash the order granting a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to establish a petrol pump/retail outlet to an opposing party in close proximity to the petitioner's existing outlet. The petitioner argued that the establishment of the new outlet would adversely affect their business and infringe their fundamental right to carry on lawful business.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the establishment of the new retail outlet did not warrant adverse orders against the petitioner, and therefore declined to interfere with the NOC and access permission granted to the opposing party. However, the court directed that no adverse order should be passed against the petitioner due to the establishment of the opposing party's retail outlet.

Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of granting NOC for the establishment of a new retail outlet in close proximity to an existing one, the potential adverse impact on the petitioner's business, and the fundamental right to carry on lawful business.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of the Petroleum Act, 1934, and the guidelines for establishment and maintenance of petrol pumps/retail outlets did not prohibit the establishment of a new outlet within 1000 meters of an existing outlet. The court also cited a precedent where a rival businessman's challenge to the setting up of a similar unit was not tenable in the eye of the law.

Final Decision: The writ petitions were disposed of, with no adverse order passed against the petitioner due to the establishment of the opposing party's retail outlet.

JUDGMENT :

I.M. Quddusi, J. - Both the writ petitions being inter-linked filed by the same Petitioner, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. In W.P.(C) No. 3928 of 2006, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned order vide Annexure-6 and the No Objection Certificate vide Annexure-7 with a direction to opposite party No. 2 to reject the prayer of opposite party No. 5 to set up its petrol pump/retail outlet at the proposed site.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPCL') has allotted its dealership to the Petitioner in the name and style of M/s. Shree Abhiram Service Station at Olipatna under Khantapara Police Station in the district of Balasore. According to the averments made in the writ petition, the Petitioner obtained necessary license and No Objection Certificate (in short 'NOC') from the competent authorities and fulfilled necessary requirements as per the Rule 117 of the Petroleum Rules and the retail outlet started its functioning with effect from 24.1.2005.

4. The opposite party No. 5 is a registered company under the Companies Act and it deals with various products and recently it has started its business in Petroleum products. In order to expand its business, the opposite party No. 5 purchased a land measuring an area of Ac.8.04. in close proximity of less than 100 meters to the North of the existing petrol pump of the instant Petitioner. Since such a vast area is not required to establish a petrol retail outlet, the Petitioner was under the impression that opposite party No. 5 would establish the depot in the said land. In the meantime on 17.2.2005, the opposite party No. 5 applied before the authority including opposite party No. 2 for grant of NOC to establish a petrol pump/retail outlet over the purchased land. By the time, the Petitioner came to know about such development, the Superintendent of Police, Balasore and Superintendent of Fire Station, Balasore and the explosives department had already granted NOC in favour of opposite party No. 5. At the same time, the Additional District Magistrate, Balasore and Tahasildar, Soro, opposite party No. 3 also recommended the opposite party No. 2 for issuance of NOC.

5. It has been further stated that as per Section 4 of the Petroleum Act, 1934, the Central Government in the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways has promulgated a set of guidelines through circulars bearing No. RW/NH-33023/19/99-DO-111 dated 25.9.2003/17.10.2003 to regulate establishment and maintenance of Petrol Pumps/Retail outlets besides National Highway throughout India. Clause 6.2.1 of the said circular prescribes that in respect of divided carriageway (with no gap in median at the location and stretch) of plain and rolling terrain in non-urban (rural) areas the distance between two fuel stations in the same side of the National Highway should be 1000 meters. Similar criteria have also been provided in Clause 4.4.1 of Appendix-1 to the said circular. Clause 4.4.3 says that if for some reasons two fuel stations are to be sited in close proximity, the same would be grouped together to have a common access through a service road of 7.0m width and connected to the highway through acceleration, deceleration lanes. But the permission for the new fuel station would be considered if it is either in proximity to the existing one so that common access can be provided or the new one is located at a distance of more than 1000 meters from the existing fuel station. Clause 4.4.4 stipulates that in the event new fuel station is established within 1000 meters of the existing one, it shall be the responsibility of the new fuel station to construct and maintain common service road, acceleration and deceleration lanes etc.

6. In view of the fact that the site on which opposite party No. 5 is going to establish its petrol pump/retail outlet being only at a distance within 100 mtrs in the same side of N.H.5 at North o













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top