JUDGMENT

The petitioners say that they are operating a Retail Fuel Outlet, under a Dealership Agreement with the 9th respondent – Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL), and that they are enjoying access permission from the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI), thus enabling their customers to access the highway from their outlet.

2. The petitioners point out that, as per the relevant Guidelines governing such permission, they are mandatorily required to be granted access to the Highway at least within a distance of 70 metres, from the edge of the paved shoulder taken up to the edge of the Right of Way; and at least at a distance of 100 metres from the edge of the Fuel Station on the exit side, for acceleration from the service road to the Highway. They allege that, however, on account of the construction now being carried on by the NHAI, this access permission is being completely violated; and that they and their customers are being denied access to the National Highway for several kilometers. They, therefore, pray that the NHAI be directed not to block the present entry and exit for vehicles of their customers, to and from their fuel station.

3. In response to the afore contentions and allegations of Sri.P.Sathisan – learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.S.Manu – learned Central Government Counsel, made submissions relying upon a statement filed by him on behalf of his client, pointing out that it has been averred therein that the petitioners’ access to the Service Road will not be blocked in any manner; and that they will have such continued access on both sides. He asserted that the access permission granted to the petitioners was at a time when the present development of the National Highway had not commenced; and that, since the policy of the Highway Authority, in furtherance of safety requirements, is to restrict direct access to the Highway, even from Service Roads, except at designated points, the plea of the petitioners, that such access be now given in terms of their earlier permission, would obliterate the safety stipulations, which are now mandatory. He submitted that, therefore, it is not possible for the Authorities to accede to the prayers of the petitioners made in this writ petition.

4. Sri.Gopikrishnan Nambiar – learned counsel appearing for the

9th respondent – HPCL, affirmed that the petitioners are operating the Fuel Station under the licence of his client; and that normally such an outlet can survive only if it has proper access from the Highway itself. He argued that, if this is not possible, then the plea of the petitioners, that they be given access to the Service Road, and therefrom to the National Highway, as per the access permission granted to them earlier, require to be acceded to by the NHAI. He thus prayed that this writ petition be allowed.

5. I have evaluated and considered the afore submissions very intently.

6. No doubt, when National Highways are developed, it is the view of the experts with respect to safety considerations and imperatives, that are paramount. Such opinion cannot be substituted or modified by this Court, since I have no competence in such areas whatsoever. It is well recognized in law, that matters of technical and safety considerations be left with the experts in the field, rather than be supplemented or interdicted by this Court.

7. That being said, the petitioners say that they had enjoying an earlier access permission from the NHAI; and that, going by the Regulations relating to it, they are entitled to access it to a minimum width of 7.5 mtrs., through the Service Road, and/or a access to the National Highway within a distance of 70 mtrs. from the edge of the paved shoulder, taken up to the edge of the Right of Way (ROW), for deceleration to the Service Road; and an access at a distance of 100 mtrs. from the edge of the Fuel Station, on the exit side, for deceleration of vehicles. This would amount to opening of the Service Road at such points, notwithstand