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

2024 Supreme(P&H) 1072

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.
M/s. Ugala Filling Station & Anr. – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CWP NO. 24682 of 2023 (O&M)
Decided On : 30-01-2024

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Prateek Sodhi, Advocate; For the Petitioners.
Mr. Rajbir Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for Respondent nos. 1 to 7.
Mr. Ashish Rawal, Advocate, for Respondent no. 8-UOI.
Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate, for Respondent no.9.
Mr. S. P. Arora, Advocate, for Respondent no. 1

IRC guidelines are directory for State Highways, and competitors can challenge violations, but the petition was dismissed for lack of merit.

Headnote:(A) Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - IRC Guidelines - The petitioners sought to restrain the establishment of a new fuel station, alleging violations of IRC guidelines regarding minimum distances between fuel stations. The court found that the guidelines were directory for State Highways and that the NOC was validly issued. (Paras 3, 5, 17, 21)

(B) Maintainability of Writ Petition - The court addressed the maintainability of the writ petition, noting that competitors can approach the court for violations of norms, but the petition was ultimately dismissed for lack of merit. (Paras 22, 23)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, operating a fuel station, challenged the establishment of a new station by a competitor, alleging non-compliance with IRC guidelines and the Forest (Conservation) Act. The court examined the validity of the NOC issued to the respondent.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the NOC issued to the respondent, concluding that the IRC guidelines were directory for State Highways and that the necessary permissions were obtained.

Issues: The main issues included the applicability of IRC guidelines to State Highways and the maintainability of the petition by a competitor.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that IRC guidelines are directory for State Highways, and the NOC was validly issued despite the petitioners' claims of violations.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.

The petitioners, who are running a fuel station allotted to them by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter to be referred as 'the BHPCL"), seek to restrain opening of another fuel station in the nearby premises to be opened by respondent no.9- the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter to be referred as 'the HPCL"), which has been allotted to respondent no. 10. Fuel station is already opened at the location: Ugala, SH-4, Shahbad Adhoya Road, District Ambala, Haryana, by the petitioner.

2. Brief facts which can be culled out from the present petition are that the HPCL issued an advertisement on 25.11.2018 for allotment of regular/ rural retail outlet dealership in various districts of Haryana including District Ambala. It has come on record that respondent no.10 had applied for the said retail outlet and was intimated on 18.07.2019 that his name having been declared as successful and was awarded dealership subject to compliance of terms and conditions issued by the HPCL in this record. Letter of Intent (LOI) was issued to respondent no.10 on 10.09.2019. As per the terms and conditions, the HPCL will develop the retail outlet at the location between villages Adhoi and Ugala on the site to be taken on lease/ purchased by the HPCL with appropriate structures, storage tanks and pumps.

3. The petitioner alleges that before setting up a retail outlet of petrol pump, the necessary permissions were required to be taken from various government departments such like Forest Department, PWD, etc. They are required to conform to the Indian Roads Congress (hereinafter to be referred as 'the IRC') guidelines in order to get NOC from the PWD. It is stated that as per IRC-12-2016 guidelines, the minimum distance between the fuel station and the intersection with rural roads/ approach roads to private and public properties should be 300 meters. The petitioners asserted that guidelines are mandatory in nature. It is alleged that their site, as located, does not conform to the IRC guidelines. It is further submitted that as per the NOC issued by respondent nos. 4 and 5, condition was imposed in the NOC itself that in case of non-compliance of IRC guidelines, NOC will be considered to have been withdrawn/ cancelled. The respondents have allegedly concealed the facts before applying for NOC. It is alleged that NOC granted by respondent nos. 4 and 5 on 27.02.2020 was issued without actually visiting the site.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners asserted that two passages are running within a distance of 200 meters from the retail outlet. One passage is leading to Chhabra Rice Mills at an approximate distance of about 25 meters and the other passage/ Gohar is at a distance of 200 meters from the site proposed, therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the NOC ought to be cancelled and the respondents should not be allowed to set up fuel station. However, the petitioners' counsel submits that there were instructions and guidelines issued under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, which are required to be followed for grant of permission to axe the trees on the forest land for diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes and for diversion of forest land for access to the retail outlet, which have been flouted by the respondents.

5. The permission to axe the trees on the forest land for diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes was wrongfully granted and the same is in contravention of the guidelines and instructions issued by the Forest Advisory Committee which lays down that the minimum distance between two fuel stations, on each side of the road, should not be less than 5 kilometers. The instructions further provided that if two or more fuel stations are to be constructed in close proximity or adjacent to each other, a common exit and access shall be provided but the same would not apply if no tree felling is involved. It is further submitted that earl

            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
            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