Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Mahendra Kumar vs State (P W D ) And Ors on 10 February, 2017
Author: Mohammad Rafiq
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1835 / 2017
Mahendra Kumar son of Shri Gangu Ram, by caste Jat, aged about
27 Years, resident of Dhani Dehra Tan Mau Bagariyawas, Tehsil
Srimadhopur, District Sikar (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Public Works
Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The District Collector,, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
3. Essar Oil & Gas through its Authorized Signatory, 172/2,
Premchand House Annexe Behind Popular House Asharam Road,
Ahmedabad-38009, Gujarat, India.
4. Indian Road Congress through its Secretary, Kama Kothi Marg,
Sector-6, R.K. Puram, New Delhi.
5. Shri Bhinwa Ram Jat son of Shri Surjaram, resident of Khasra
No. 251, Village Rampura Thoi, Tehsil Sri Madhopur, District Sikar
(Rajasthan).
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahesh Kalwania.
_____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Order 10/02/2017 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner contending that Essar Oil and Gas Company invited application for offering retail outlet, in response to which, several persons along with Respondent No. 5 applied for allotting the retail outlet. Respondent No. 5 was issued letter of appointment on 30.12.2014 for running/establishing a retail outlet at Khasra No. 251, Village Rampura Thoi, Tehsil Sri Madhopur, District Sikar. The petitioner made number of representations for not permitting Respondent No. 5 to run/establish the retail outlet as the land in question (2 of 2) [CW-1835/2017] offered by the Respondent No. 5 is not suitable as per norms and standard prescribed by the public works department in its guidelines dated 27.12.2004. The petitioner sent a legal notice to the respondents on 12.04.2016, but no heed was paid to the request of the petitioner. On 11.01.2017, Executive Engineer, PWD submitted its report that land of Respondent No. 5 is not suitable for establishing retail outlet of petrol pump as intersections are situated at 77m and 75m which are utter violation of norms and guidelines of PWD, GOI, and Indian Road Congress. Learned counsel cited judgment of Allahabad High Court in Kumud Vishwakarma Vs. Union of India & Others(Writ C No. 6760/2014 decided on 13.05.2016; judgment of Patna High Court in Namita Singh Vs. The Union of India & Ors. in Civil Writ Petition No. 20144/2013 decided on 08.03.2016; Kailash Chand Poddar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others(SB CWP No. 9760/2006 decided on 29.10.2007).
Having regard to the facts aforesaid, the petitioner is required to approach Respondent No. 2, District Collector, District Sikar by way of filing representation along with copy of this order, who shall examine whether the NOC has been wrongly granted in the light of aforesaid judgments and decide the same by passing speaking order within a period of one month from the date of its filing. With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed off. Stay application also stands disposed off.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. Manoj