Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Shahi Palace vs Union Of India And Others on 9 July, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:084785
CWP-15473
15473-2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(101)
CWP-15473-20242024
Date of Decision:-09.07.2024
.2024
M/S Shahi Palace
......Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN
****
Present: Mr. S.P.S. Aulakh, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Bharat Bhushan Sharma, Senior Panel Counsel
for respondent No. 1-UOI.
Mr. Amit Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate
for respondents No. 7 and 8.
Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate for respondent No. 9.
****
ALOK JAIN,
JAIN J. (Oral)
1. The present petition is for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari seeking quashing of No Objection Certificate dated 20.06.2024 (Annexure P-6) P 6) issued by respondent No. 3 for commencing a petrol pump retail outlet in favour of respondents No. 7 and 8.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the owner in possession of the adjoining property where the petrol pump is proposed to be set up and since, the adjoining property is a marriage palace and a significant number of people gather there at a 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 23-07-2024 12:17:20 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:084785 CWP-15473 15473-2024 2 particular time, time, therefore, there is violation of the Punjab Municipal Building Bye-Laws, Bye 2018 especially rule 8.4, which reads as under:
"Petrol filling ling station provides that the location of the petrol filling stations and its layout shall be approved by the Municipal Council with respect of nearness to occupancies of educational, assembly, storage and hazardous rdous uses.
uses."
3. He further submits thatt during the marriage functions functions, fire crackers are generally used by the guests guest which could, in all probability,, pose a danger to the life of not only the guest guests celebrating the function at the petitioner's property, property but also to the life of the general public at large. He has also submitted that the Deputy Commissioner before granting the NOC has not looked into the aspect that the kitchen of the marriage palace and the proposed petrol pump share a common wall wall.. He further submits that he has sent representations to various authorities but the same have not been looked into by the authorities in the correct perspective.
4. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondents No. 7 and 8 and a Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate has put in appearance and files his Power of Attorney on behalf of the respondent No. 9 in Court today, which is taken on record, su subject bject to all just exceptions and has submitted that they have commenced the operation of the petrol pump after getting clearance and requisition of all the permission permissions from all the competent authorities. They further submit that the operations of the petrol pump have commenced and there has been no violation of law.
5. He further submits that there here is no violation of any bye-laws laws and the requirement of clause 8.4 read with the guidelines issued by the 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 23-07-2024 12:17:21 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:084785 CWP-15473 15473-2024 3 NGT only prohibited that a new retail outlet shall not be located within in a radius of 50 meters (from the filling point/dispensing unit/vent pipe hichever is nearest) from the schools, hospitals (10 beds and above) and whichever residential areas designated as per local laws. He further submits that they have got all the requisite permissions from the Fire Department as well well, and the only reason for filing the present petition is the personal vendetta of the petitioner as the petitioner was using the land of respondent No. 9 for parking the cars as and when any function was being arranged. The fact with regard to parking has been been vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that it was not they who were parking the cars of their guests guest but it was a marriage palace situated across the road namely "Bharti Bharti Palace"
Palace which were using the said land land.
6. Heard ard learned counsel for the parties at length.
7. It is a settled principle of law that Article 226 of the Constitution can only be invoked when there is a violation of any fundamental or legal right of any citizen.
8. In the present case, prima facie facie,, no legal or fundamental right of the petitioner has been violated and apparently it is nothing but a private dispute between two parties. It has also not been brought on record that which provision of law has been violated or how the impugned NOC wa wass granted without application of mind. As regards the argument that during the celebration at the marriage hall,, fire crackers are used, for that purpose the Deputy Commissioner Commission is directed to issue strict instructions that no fire crackers would be used except except by taking permission from the appropriate
3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 23-07-2024 12:17:21 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:084785 CWP-15473 15473-2024 4 Authority and in case, anybody is found in violation of the same, strict action be taken.
9. However, as a matter of abundant precaution, the Fire Safety Authorities are directed to conduct a diligent inspection before the grant of final NOC to respondents No. 7 and 8. 8
10. With the above directions,, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.
(ALOK JAIN) JUDGE 09.07.2024 Parul Whether speaking/reasoned:
speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether Reportable:- Yes/No
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 23-07-2024 12:17:21 :::