Back
2006 Supreme(P&H) 3673
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Hemant Gupta, J.
Ganpati Service Station, Balaha Kalan
Versus
District Magistrate
C.R. No. 4632 of 2006,
Decided On : OCTOBER 10, 2006
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the instructions IRC 12, 1983, issued by the Ministry of Surface Transport were found to be directory and did not impose an absolute bar on setting up a fuel filling station.
Headnote:
IRC 12 - Fuel Filling Stations - The court held that the instructions IRC 12, 1983, issued by the Ministry of Surface Transport were found to be directory and did not lay an absolute bar for setting up a fuel filling station. The court also emphasized that the competent authority is not required to record sufficient reasons for permitting two adjacent fuel filling stations if Clause 4.2 is applicable.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a revision petition against the dismissal of their application for an injunction to restrain the respondents from opening a fuel filling station.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the instructions IRC 12, 1983, were directory and did not impose an absolute bar on setting up a fuel filling station. The court also upheld the no objection granted by the District Magistrate.
Issues: The issue was whether the instructions IRC 12, 1983, imposed an absolute bar on setting up a fuel filling station and whether the no objection granted by the District Magistrate was legal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the instructions IRC 12, 1983, were directory and did not impose an absolute bar on setting up a fuel filling station. The court also emphasized that the competent authority is not required to record sufficient reasons for permitting two adjacent fuel filling stations if Clause 4.2 is applicable.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition, stating that there was no illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the lower courts.
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. The plaintiff is in present revision petition aggrieved against the orders passed by the Courts below, whereby its application for adinterim injunction restraining the respondents from opening the fuel filling station, was dismissed.
2. The sole argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, is based on the instructions IRC 12, 1983, issued by the Ministry of Surface transport (Roads Wing), which contemplates that clear distance between two adjacent fuel filling stations should not be less than 300 meters. Clause 4.2 contemplates that if for some reasons, two or more fuel filling stations are sited in close proximity, these should be grouped together and a parallel service road provided by way of common access to the Highway.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that Clause 4.2 is proviso to the general rule and therefore, the competent authority is to record sufficient reasons as to why two adjacent fuel filling stations are permitted.
4. However, I am unable to accept the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Once Clause 4.2 deals with the fuel filling stations in close proximity, therefore, such clause does not lay any absolute bar for setting up of the fuel filling station. Moreover, such instructions have been found to be directory. I do not find any illegality in the no objection granted by the District Magistrate.
5. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Courts below which may warrant interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed in limine. It may be clarified that any observation while deciding the application for grant of ad-interim junction, is only for the purpose of deciding such application. The learned trial Court should decided the suit on merits in accordance with law.
