Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manthan Parmarthik Sanstha A Society ... vs Union Of India on 19 February, 2019
W.P. No.1294/2019 1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE
W.P. No.1294/2019
Manthan Parmarthik Sanstha v/s Union of India & Others
Indore, dated 19.02.2019
Shri A.S. Garg and A.S. Kutumble, learned senior
counsel along with Shri L.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel
for the petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned counsel for
respondent No.4.
Shri Dilip Kshirsagar, learned counsel for respondent No.5.
Shri Aniket Naik, learned counsel for respondent No.6.
The petitioner before this Court, Manthan Parmarthik Sanstha, a society registered under the Madhya Pradesh Society Registration Adhiniyam, 1973 has filed this present petition against Indian Oil Corporation, Bharat Petroleum and Hindustan Petroleum being aggrieved by the issuance of advertisement for establishment of new retail outlets vide notification dated 14.12.2018.
2. The petitioner's contention is that approximately there are 55,600 retail outlets of all categories in the country and after the locations in respect of the retail outlets advertised is taken into account, there will be about 80,948 retail outlets in the country.
3. It has also been stated that in the advertisement, which has been filed by the petitioner, details have not been furnished in respect of the locations of the retail outlets and the oil companies are establishing the retail W.P. No.1294/2019 2 outlets in an arbitrary manner. The petitioner has given the details of retail outlets, which is already existing in the writ petition and has stated that the procedure to establish retail outlets has been prescribed by the Petroleum & Natural Gas Regulatory Board and various guidelines have also been issued by the Central Government from time to time for establishment of retail outlets. It has been argued that the respondents are not following the prescribed procedure.
4. It has also been stated that Indian Road Congress has issued various guidelines for establishment of retail outlets and in light of the judgment delivered in the case of Baseer M.M. v/s The State of Kerela dated 19.10.2011, the retail outlets in the manner and method they have been advertised, cannot be established.
5. It has also been stated that fee for SC & ST candidates has been enhanced and new retail outlets will be great hazard to the environment. It has also been stated that establishment of the retail outlets is contrary to the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to the citizens of India under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. A ground has been taken that establishment of retail outlets will degrade the air, it will create noise and water pollution and will result in deforestation also.
6. It has also been argued before this Court that retail outlets are being established at the eve of Lok Sabha Election and all the advertisement deserves to set aside.
7. Amendment application has also been filed in the matter and this Court has allowed the amendment W.P. No.1294/2019 3 application on 06.02.2019. Counsel for oil companies have also marked their presence in the matter. Shri Yogesh Mittal has marked his presence for respondent No.4, Shri Dilip Kshirsagar has marked his presence for respondent No.5 and Shri Aniket Naik has marked his presence for respondent No.6.
8. This Court has carefully gone through the writ petition and has heard Shri A.S. Garg, learned senior counsel at length.
9. The establishment of retail outlets is not at the sweet will of any oil company. The oil company in consultation with each other as well as the instruction issued from time to time by the Petroleum & Natural Gas Regulatory Board, frames a roster, and thereafter, the locations are advertised. The location, so advertised, contains all minute details and in the advertisement, which has been filed by the petitioner, details of the website of oil companies / allotting agencies find place and all minute details are available on the website.
10. It has been argued with great force that the commission which the present dealers are receiving from the oil companies will be divided in large number of people on the ground of establishment of retail outlets.
11. This Court is of the considered opinion that no person is being forced to open a retail outlets or to carry out the business of selling petrol / other petroleum product. If a person has entered into an agreement with an oil company as per his / her sweet will, profit & loss is the subject matter between the dealer and oil company W.P. No.1294/2019 4 and simply because the dealer will get less profit, it cannot be a ground for treating the petitioner's petition as a Public Interest Litigation Writ Petition.
12. Heavy reliance has been placed upon a judgment delivered by the Kerela High Court dated 19.10.2011 in the case of Baseer M.M. (supra) in W.A. No.741/2011. The aforesaid judgment was reversed and set aside by Hon'ble the Apex Court vide order dated 02.04.2018 passed in SLP (Civil) No.1728-1736/2012.
13. The Government of India has scrapped Administrative Price Mechanism in respect of petroleum product in the year 2002, and thereafter, all the oil companies are free to open new retail outlets anywhere, at any place and in any number. The opening of retail outlet is purely a prerogative of all the oil companies, however, the same has to be done keeping in view the instruction issued by the Government of India as well as the regulatory body i.e. Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board guidelines.
14. The petitioner has not been able to point out violation of any statutory provisions of law nor by any stretch of imagination, it can be said that it is a Public Interest Litigation. Under the Petroleum Act read with Petroleum Rules, No Objection Certificate is required to be obtained from Pollution Control Board, Town and Country Planning Department, Municipal Corporation, Collector and District Magistrate and as there are already statutory rules, the question of interference by this Court in a Public Interest Litigation doesn't arise.
W.P. No.1294/2019 515. The petitioner's concern in respect of environment certainly requires consideration by this Court. However, the issue relating to adverse impact on environment is already a subject matter in the case of Gyanprakash @ Pappu Singh v/s Union of India & Others pending before the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No.86/2019 dated 18.01.2019. The Principal Bench on 18.01.2019 has passed by the following orders:-
"The issue raised in this application is to limit number of petrol pumps so as to avoid adverse impact on the environment. The applicant has referred to news item dated 24.12.2018 in 'Live Mint' under the heading "Indian Oil, HP and BP's plan to open 80,000/- petrol pumps hits land hurdle" to submit that large number of petrol pumps are being opened without any concern for environment and without any guideline about sustainability of such large number of petrol pumps.
Reference has been made to the guidelines issued by Indian Road Congress " General Conditions of Siting" laying down distance from the highways and distance between the two fuel stations. Photographs of unregistered and indigenously assembled vehicles have also been filed with further averments that such vehicles create air pollution and safety hazardous.
We are of the view that matter needs to be looked into by a Joint Committee of representatives of the Central Pollution Control Board and the Ministry of Petroleum. The CPCB will be the nodal agency. The first meeting of the Committee may be held within one month and on review of the subject matter, appropriate guidelines be issued by the Central Pollution Control Board, in exercise of its statutory power within three months thereafter.
The Central Pollution Control Board may furnish an action taken report to the Tribunal by emain at [email protected] on or before 30th W.P. No.1294/2019 6 April, 2019.
The application is disposed of.
Put up the report for consideration on 05.07.2019."
16. So far the issue of adverse impact on environment is concerned, the National Green Tribunal is already dealing with the matter and there cannot be parallel proceedings before this Court or before the National Green Tribunal in respect of adverse impact of environment.
17. The same advertisements, which are subject matter of the present writ petition were challenged by local dealer before this Court and this Court by an order dated 11.02.2019 passed in W.P. No.2001/2019 (Munnalal Agrawal & Another v/s Union of India & Others) has dismissed the writ petition.
18. In the considered opinion of this Court, the present petition is nothing, but an attempt to restrain the oil companies from opening retail outlets at the behest of existing dealers. This Court does not find any reason to entertain the present PIL and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(S.C. SHARMA) (VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ravi
Digitally signed by Ravi Prakash
Date: 2019.02.22 10:38:47 +05'30'