Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jay Shankar Kapoor vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. on 7 October, 2020
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1 WP-27842-2019
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-27842-2019
(JAY SHANKAR KAPOOR Vs BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS)
3
Jabalpur, Dated : 07-10-2020
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Mr. Ashok Lalwani, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sankalp Kochar, Advocate appearing on behalf of the intervener.
Heard on admission as well as on I.A. No.493/2020 an application for
intervention.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 16.10.2019 (Annexure-P/10)
whereby respondent No.2/Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation
Limited (MPRDC) has refused to grant No Objection Certificate (NOC) in favour of the petitioner for installation of retail outlet dealership of petrol pump for which permission has already been granted by respondent No.1 and thereafter vide letter dated 21.11.2019, respondent No.2 intimated the result of seeking review on the decision taken on 16.10.2019 to respondent No.1 stating therein that no further review is required and the decision already taken on 16.10.2019 is maintained.
The petition is yet to be considered on the question of admission as well as grant of interim relief as no notices have been issued to the respondents so far. However, in advance an application for intervention i.e. I.A. No.493/2020 has been filed by the intervener who is already having a retail outlet dealership of petrol pump in front of the proposed installation of retail outlet as has been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner by respondent No.1.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has opposed the application of intervention and submits that the intervener has no locus to intervene in the matter. He further submits that by this petition, the petitioner is challenging the refusal of NOC in which intervener has no role to play. He further submits 2 WP-27842-2019 that if retail outlet dealership of petrol pump is installed by the petitioner, it would only cause loss to the interevener's commercial interest, therefore, he has no locus to intervene in the matter. In support of his contention, he relies upon an order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.2786/2019 [M/s Vivek Automobiles, Ratlam Vs. State of MP and another] which was the petition filed by one of the competitors of a person in whose favour sanction for installation of petrol pump was granted by all the authorities including the MPRDC. The said petition was finally dismissed by the Court holding that every person has a right to do business according to his choice and competitor cannot raise any objection merely because his commercial interest would be affected due to installation of new retail outlet. He further relies upon an order passed by the Madras High Court in the case of W.P. No.41827/2016 [S. Shanmugharaja Vs. The District Collector, Puducherry & others] and other connected petitions in which the Court has also observed that the competitor has no right to challenge the NOC granted in favour of a person who is going to install a retail outlet. He also relies upon a judgment reported in (2005) 1 CTC 394 parties being [Natraja Agencies, Pondicherry Vs. The Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India New Delhi and others] in which the Division Bench has also observed that a rival businessman cannot file a writ petition challenging the setting-up of a similar unit by another businessman on the ground that establishing a rival business close to his business place would adversely affect his business interest and finally, the petition filed by the competitor was dismissed. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner has opposed the application of intervention and submits that there is no locus of the intervener to intervene in the petition and prays that the application filed by him deserves to be rejected.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the intervener fairly submits that the intervener is not objecting and intervening in the matter for the reason that his business interest would be defeated if new 3 WP-27842-2019 retail outlet dealership of petrol pump is installed in the vicinity by the petitioner, however, on the contrary, he submits that considering the interest of public at large, if a new outlet of petrol pump just in front of his petrol pump is allowed to be installed then there would be every possibility of increase in number of accidents and the same would adversely affect the interest of the public. He further submits that on earlier occasion, the intervener has objected the sanction/allotment made in favour of the petitioner for installation of petrol pump and filed a petition i.e. Writ Petition No.12947/2019 [Smt. Sarika Gupta Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited & others] in which this Court while disposing of the petition, granted liberty to the parties including the present petitioner for approaching the Court again after the decision is taken by the MPRDC. The decision has been taken by respondent no.2 rejecting the request for grant of NOC in favour of the petitioner. In such a situation, as per Mr. Kochar, the intervener has every right to intervene in the matter in pursuance to the observations made by this Court.
However, I am not convinced with the contention raised by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the interevener for the reason that on earlier occasion, no question of locus was raised and has been decided by this Court but here in this case, since the grant of NOC in favour of the petitioner has been refused by the MPRDC and that decision exclusively affects his right, therefore, obviously he has every right to challenge the same but the intervener has nothing to do with the said decision. Merely because while disposing of the earlier petition, liberty was granted by this Court, it does not mean that even after refusal of grant of NOC by respondent No.2, intervener can intervene in the matter. At the most, intervener could challenge the grant of NOC if the same would have been granted in favour of the petitioner. But, at present in any manner his interest would not be affected because it is the petitioner against whom the order has been passed by respondent No.2 and he has right to challenge the same.
4 WP-27842-2019 In view of the aforesaid, I.A. No.493/2020 filed by the intervener stands rejected.
Let notice be issued to the respondents on payment of process fee within seven days by RAD mode, returnable by the next date of hearing.
So far as interim relief is concerned, at this moment no case of interim relief is made out as the MPRDC has refused to grant of NOC in favour of the petitioner and the question whether grant of NOC by respondent No.2 is mandatory requirement or not, is yet to be determined, therefore, no case of interim relief is made out.
List in the week commencing 19.10.2020.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE Devashish Digitally signed by DEVASHISH MISHRA Date: 2020.10.09 15:49:19 +05'30'