CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.22574 OF 2010 (O&M) :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 04 ,2011 Sukhdev Singh Randhawa .....Petitioner VERSUS Hindustran Petroleum Corporation Limited, Mumbai and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Onkar Singh Batalvi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Atul Nehra, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. Vikram Bajwa, Advocate, the respondent No.4. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. An advertisement was issued on 26.4.2010 for allotment of retail outlet under the Scheme `Hamara Pump' at different sites in the State of Punjab. One of the site was in District Gurdaspur between 75 to 79 kilometers National Highway 15 Batala-Amritsar road. The petitioner was applicant for this site and was interviewed. Result was declared and respondent No.4 was selected. As per the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.22574 OF 2010 (O&M) :{ 2 }: petitioner, respondent No.4, who has been allotted the dealership is not fully eligible, whereas the petitioner is fully eligible but has not been properly assessed, especially in the criteria of `land and infrastructure'. The petitioner claims that he owns 10 kanals 9 marlas land, whereas requirement for setting up of retail outlet is only 5 kanals. Respondent No.4 has 3 kanals land, which is much less than even the laid down requirement. The petitioner has accordingly challenged the allotment made in favour of respondent No.4. The petitioner would point out that high tension line of more than 11 K.Vs is found crossing over the land of respondent No.4, which he has offered and which is selected for setting up the retail outlet. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 have filed reply. It is averred that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed for making gross mis- statement and for concealment of material facts. As per the respondents, the petitioner has concealed the fact that there is a 5 meter wide metaled road within 31.90 meters of boundary of the land offered by the petitioner, going to the village houses and accordingly the same land was found technically unsuitable for setting up a retail outlet in terms of the statutory norms of National Highway Authority of India. The relevant guideline 4.3 of National Highway Authority of India regarding norms for location, lay out and access to fuel station alongwith National highway is extracted in the reply, which is as under:- “4.3 In order to provide safe length for weaving of traffic, fuel station along National Highways shall be located at CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.22574 OF 2010 (O&M) :{ 3 }: the minimum distance from an intersection (gap in the central median be treated as intersection), as given below. For single carriageway section, these minimum distances would be applicable for both sides. 4.3.1 Non-Urban (Rural) Stretches. 1. Plain and Rolling Terrain (i) Intersection with Nhs/SHs/MDRs 1000 m (ii) Intersection with Rural Roads 300 m with carriageway width of 3.5 m or more (iii) Intersection with Rural roads and 100 m all other earth tracks with carriageway width less than 3.5m.” The respondents would point out that the petitioner has mis-stated the fact that the Corporation had advertised the subject location under `Hamara Pump Category' as stated in the petition whereas in fact the site advertised is under `Highway Category'. It is not `Hamara Pump' site, which is for a rural petrol pump. It is further disclosed that the petitioner failed to secure even minimum qualifying marks of 60% and, thus, could not be allotted retail outlet. The only submission made by counsel for the petitioner is that action of the respondents in allotting `zero' mark to the petitioner in the criteria of `land and infrastructure' on the ground that the site offered by him would not satisfy the norms for location, layout etc. as per the National Highway Norms could not have been made applicable at this stage. As per the petitioner, the stage of getting `no CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.22574 OF 2010 (O&M) :{ 4 }: objection' from the National Highway Authority would arise only after allotment and so can not be insisted at this stage. The suitability of a site for allotment of a pump has to be seen and appreciated by the Oil Companies. The respondent- corporation is apparently justified in viewing that the site is not suitable as per the norms laid down in the guidelines. Reference is made to Note 2 of Clause 13 of the Corporation's Dealer Selection Guidelines, which has provided that in case the land offered is on National Highway, the same should meet the criteria as per NHAI guidelines as contained in Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highway letter No.RW/NH/33023/19/99-DO-III dated 25.9.2003/17.10.2003 and further amendment if any from time to time. Since the site offered by the petitioner was assessed in this background and was not found suitable, the action of the respondents would not be unfair or unreasonable in any manner. The scope of judicial review in such like matters is well settled. The limited scope of judicial review that the court exercise in such like matters would not call for any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction in this case. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. May 04,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE