Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.81 seconds)

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs Arti Devi Dangi on 14 October, 2015

6. From the perusal of the averments made by the third respondent in the counter-affidavit, it is clear that the permission granted to the eighth respondent for the subject retail outlet cannot be stated to be violative of the IRC Guidelines. According to the third respondent, the retail outlet is neither in the National Highway nor State Highway. There is no dispute that in the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation Limited V. Arti Devi Dangi, (2016) 15 SCC 480, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is reiterated that the authorities have to mandatorily follow the Indian Road Congress (IRC) guidelines. However, the said judgment is not helpful to advance the cause of the petitioner for the simple reason that the condition to have minimum of 300 meters distance between two fuel stations, as has been imposed in the IRC guidelines, is applicable for the stations along http://www.judis.nic.in Page 5/10 W.P.No.6217/2020 the National Highways and the same is not applicable to the fuel station of the eighth respondent.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 33 - Full Document

Mithilesh Garg Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc. Etc on 22 November, 1991

In Mithilesh case, cited supra, the Supreme Court followed its own decision in Rice and Flour Mills v. N.T. Gowda, AIR 1971 SC 246, wherein it was held that a rice mill-owner has no locus standi to challenge under Article 226, the setting up of a new rice-mill by another even if such setting up be in contravention of Section 8(3)(c) of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 because no right vested in such an applicant is infringed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 298 - K Singh - Full Document

Nagar Rice & Flour Miills & Ors vs N. Teekappa Gowda & Bros. & Ors on 27 February, 1970

In Mithilesh case, cited supra, the Supreme Court followed its own decision in Rice and Flour Mills v. N.T. Gowda, AIR 1971 SC 246, wherein it was held that a rice mill-owner has no locus standi to challenge under Article 226, the setting up of a new rice-mill by another even if such setting up be in contravention of Section 8(3)(c) of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 because no right vested in such an applicant is infringed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 174 - J C Shah - Full Document
1