Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Tulsiram Kasaniya vs Union Of India on 12 April, 2023

Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari

Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, Prakash Chandra Gupta

                                                      1
                           IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT INDORE
                                                  BEFORE
                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
                                                     &
                              HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
                                             ON THE 12 th OF APRIL, 2023
                                          WRIT PETITION No. 6009 of 2023

                          BETWEEN:-
                          TULSIRAM KASANIYA S/O SHRI MADHAW LAL
                          KASANIYA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                          SOCIAL WORK/ AGRICULTURE DHARSIKHEDA DHAR
                          (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                              .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI PEYUSH JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER )

                          AND
                          1.    UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETORY
                                DEPARTMENT OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL
                                GAS A WING, SHASTRI RAJENDRA PRASDAD
                                ROAD-11001, AZAD BHAWAN RD-IP-ESTATE, NEW
                                DELHI (DELHI)

                          2.    NAYRA ENERGY LTD. THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL
                                MANAGER 506, MALOO-01 BUILDING 5TH FLOOR,
                                SCHEME NO. 94, NEAR VELOCITY MULTIPLEX
                                RING ROAD, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    STATE OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR DHAR
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4.    THE    MANAGER MADHYA PRADESH ROAD
                                DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION DARBARSINGH
                                GOHEL, SILVER HILLS COLONY, MAHARANA
                                PRATAP STATUE, INDORE ROAD, DHAR (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          5.    SACHIN JAIN S/O SHRI PRAKASH CHAND JAIN
                                GULMOHAR CHOWK BAZAR, RAJOD, TEH.
                                SARDARPUR, DIST. DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                            .....RESPONDENTS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 4/12/2023
6:20:08 PM
                                                       2
                          (BY SHRI HIMANSHU JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.1
                           SHRI BHASKAR AGRAWAL, GOVT ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT
                          NO.2 )

                                 This petition coming on for admission this day, JUSTICE SUSHRUT
                          ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI passed the following:
                                                               ORDER

Heard on the question of admission.

The petitioner invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has filed the present petition in the style of Pro Bono Publico seeking issuance of appropriate orders/writ/directions to the respondents to stop illegal allotment of petrol pump contrary to the rules and guidelines as framed for establishment of petrol pump/fuel station/retail petroleum outlet.

It is stated in the petition that this petition has been filed in the form of public interest litigation since petitioner has no personal interest in the subject matter, but the same has been filed looking to the interest of large number of residents of nearby locality, students studying in the school etc. who could be saved from adverse effect due to non-fulfillment of the guidelines and norms in letter and spirit.

The brief facts of the case are that the respondent no.2 had published an advertisement for proposed installation of petroleum retail outlet at Rajod Tehsil Sardarpur Distt. Dhar. Aforesaid petrol pump has been allotted to the respondent no.5. When this came to the knowledge of the petitioner and other residents of the area where the petrol pump is going to be installed near the school where thousands of students are studying, petitioner on his own inquired the matter and opt the documents through RTI and found various discrepancies and breach of rules and guidelines, the petitioner raised objection before the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN Signing time: 4/12/2023 6:20:08 PM 3 respondent no.3. As per the guidelines, petrol pump can be established after all norms are met, but in the present case there is a Govt. School near the allotted petrol pump situated at Khasra No. 1513/1/2 whereas the Government Higher Secondary school is running at Khasra No. 2512. As per the guidelines issued by the respondent no.2, the distance between the intersection is minimum 300 meters whereas the distance from proposed land Ranikheda Junction is only 154 meters from Rajod Runi Tiraha which violates the guidelines. As per the guidelines two fuel stations cannot be installed between 300 meters distance but contrary to the guidelines present fuel station of IOCL and fuel station of Nayra are proposed to be installed within a 300 meter limit. As per report of the Assistant Engineer of MPPKVVCL in which it is stated that 11 KVA and 33 KVA lines are to be shifted. Despite written objections and representations, the respondents are sitting tight over the matter and not taking any action against the responsible persons, therefore, the competent authority of the respondents may be directed to decide the pending representation of the petitioner and thereafter cancel the allotment of respondent no.5.

Learned Govt. Advocate opposed the prayer and submitted that it is the prerogative of the oil company and the Government to decide the location for establishment of petroleum outlet. Proper NOC's have been granted after allotment of petrol pump to the respondent no.5 This public interest litigation has been filed only with the ulterior motive to gain cheap popularity. Hence, the same deserves to be dismissed.

Heard, learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. Since the respondents have not taken any decision on the pending representation, the petitioner is directed to file fresh representation within a period of seven working days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN Signing time: 4/12/2023 6:20:08 PM 4 order passed today before the competent authority alongwith necessary documents. If such a representation is filed, the competent authority is directed to decide the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six weeks thereafter after affording opportunity of hearing to all the concerned including respondent no.5 and pass a reasoned speaking order.

With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

                               (S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)                      (PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
                                        JUDGE                                      JUDGE
                          sh




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 4/12/2023
6:20:08 PM