Uttarakhand High Court
SPA/25/2023 on 27 February, 2023
Author: Alok Kumar Verma
Bench: Alok Kumar Verma
Office Notes,
reports,
orders or
proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
and
Registrar's
order with
Signatures
27.02.2023
SPA No. 25 of 2023
Hon'ble Vipin Sanghi, C.J.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.
Mr. B.S. Adhikari and Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. J.C. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. Abhilash Nainwal, proxy counsel for Mr. Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for respondent No. 3. Mr. V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. I.P. Kohli, learned counsel for respondent No. 4.
Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel for respondent No. 5.
The appellant has preferred the present Appeal to assail the order dated 10.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 81 of 2023.
The learned Single Judge has not found merit in the appellant's claim in the writ petition, and dismissed the same.
The appellant was running a retail outlet (petrol pump) provided by respondent No. 4-IOCL, since 2004 at place called 'Kurdi Manglour, District Haridwar'.
It appears that due to construction of a new bridge over the National Highway 58, the appellant faced shortage of business, as the retail outlet (petrol pump) was being bypassed.
The case of the appellant is that on 17.02.2017, the appellant applied for allotment / shifting at another location.
Mr. Adhikari submits that this application was scrutinised, and the local Authorities approved of the same. While the Application of the appellant was still pending, respondent No. 4-IOCL advertised a retail outlet (petrol pump) at the location "within 4 KM from Narsan Border Police Chok Towards Roorkee LHS on NH-334, District Haridwar". In pursuance thereof, private respondent No. 5 applied, and he emerged as a successful bidder. Respondent No. 5 is in the process of setting-up its retail outlet (petrol pump) at the allotted site. The appellant set-up its petrol pump outlet after obtaining no objection from the concerned authorities in the year 2021, whereafter the appellant started objecting to respondent No. 5 setting up its retail outlet (petrol pump) at the allotted site. This was not agreed to by the respondents, and consequently, it preferred the aforesaid writ petition, which has been dismissed. The appellant did not derive any vested right at any point of time while applying for and obtaining no objection from the concerned Authorities for shifting its retail outlet (petrol pump). In the meantime, IOCL had advertised another retail outlet (petrol pump) in the same vicinity on 25.11.2018. The appellant did not object to the said advertisement, of which he also had a notice.
Pertinently, he purchased a new site to shift his retail outlet (petrol pump) on 11.02.2019 knowing fully well that another retail outlet (petrol pump) site has been allotted in the vicinity in pursuance of the Advertisement dated 25.11.2018. The appellant has placed reliance on the policy of the respondents not to have two retail outlets (petrol pumps) within one kilometres of each other to say that respondent No. 5 should not be permitted to set-up his retail outlet (petrol pump). In fact, in our view, the said policy cuts against the appellant's claim, and by its logic, it is the appellant which should be ousted and not respondent No. 5.
We do not find any merit in this Appeal. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Alok Kumar Verma, J) (Vipin Sanghi, CJ) 27.02.2023 27.02.2023 Rathour