C.W.P. No.6239 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.6239 of 2010 Date of Decision.21.07.2011 Charan Dass s/o Sh. Gulab Ram, resident of H.No.245-R, Model Town, Panipat .....Petitioner Versus Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001 and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Y.P. Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Brijeshwar Singh Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.1. Ms. Kirti Singh, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate for respondent Nos.2, 3 and 7. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition has been filed at the instance of a provisional allottee of a dealership for setting up a petrol pump of the Indian Oil Corporation. The selection was made after a process of appraisal from several persons but the letter of intent was withdrawn by the Corporation on the ground that No Objection Certificate, which was required from the District Magistrate was not given on the ground that the existing location of the petitioner's outlet was in a distance of less than 300 mtrs of yet another dealer of the same oil company. The challenge is to the withdrawal of the letter of intent and refusal of NOC C.W.P. No.6239 of 2010 -2- made by the District Magistrate by his proceedings dated 12.09.2008. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that the desirability of setting up petrol outlet within a distance of 300 mtrs is only directory and there can be any number of situations where the Corporation finds it exigent to grant such permission to another retail outlet within that distance also. It is further contended that the guideline itself has no statutory force and the District Magistrate was not competent to apply this yardstick to deny the NOC. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers me to the guidelines which reads as under:- “4.7 “The distance between the tangent points of the curves of the side road and that of the fuel filling station as shown in plate, measured in a direction parallel to the central line of the road should not be less than 100 meters and the station should be located only in the outbound direction as shown in the plate. However, on expressway and arterial road having dual carriage way, the distance from a junction should not be less than 300 meters.” 3. In respect of the enforcement of such a guideline sought through a civil suit at the instance of yet another party, the Collector Panipat has explained the guidelines in following words:- “The distance between the tangent points of the curves of the side road and that of the fuel filling station as shown in plate, measured in a direction paralleled to the central line of the road should not be less than 100 meters and the station should be located only in the outbound direction as shown in the plate. However, on expressway and arterial road having dual C.W.P. No.6239 of 2010 -3- carriage way, the distance from a junction should not be less than 300 meters. Furthermore, it is relevant to submit here that NOC dated 23.11.2006 contain a condition at serial No.7 of clause B to the effect that there will be no violation of the guidelines for setting up of motor fuel filling cum service station as contained in I.R.C.-12-1983 and as per clause 4.7 of IRC-12-1983, the minimum distance of the tangent point of the curve of the side road and that of the fuel filling station should not be less than 100 meters as explained above. However, the minimum distance norms of 300 meters is applicable for express way and arterial road having dual carriage way whereas the proposed retail outlet is situated on a State Highway No.14 which is undivided carriage way.” 4. The location of the proposed outlet also falls in the same road in the same State Highway No.14 and hence, it is contended that the same yardstick must apply. The issue of whether this location of a petrol pump comes within the so-called prohibited distance, has come for consideration before this Court earlier. A Division Bench of this Court has held in Sanjeev Kumar Vs. State of Haryana ILR (2007) 1 P&H 227 that in the absence of State Government notification approving of the guideline relating to distance restriction cannot validly operate and cannot be used to deny NOC by the District Magistrate. It shall not permissible, if the Indian Oil Corporation on a consideration of all relevant facts found that it could be located at that particular place unless there was a serious issue of a traffic congestion or any particular danger to location of the petrol pump. The District Magistrate shall not C.W.P. No.6239 of 2010 -4- cite only the issue of distance as relevant consideration for refusing to give a No Objection Certificate. 5. Learned counsel for the State points out that the location of the petrol pump shall also not be appropriate since it was near abadi deh and a religious place. They are factually denied by the petitioner but it has not been brought before me that there existed any rule that petrol pump cannot be situated near an abadi deh or a religious place of worship. On the other hand, every other public authority viz;, PCB, DTP, SSP have given NOC for this location of the outlet. The objections given by the Executive Magistrate were not appropriate and he was bound to have considered the issue of NOC favourably if there are no issues of statutory violation or issues of traffic safety. 6. The impugned proceedings are quashed and the petitioner shall be entitled to reconsideration of issue of letter of intent and the District Magistrate shall reconsider the application for No Objection Certificate lodged at the instance of the Indian Oil Corporation for the location of petrol pump at the said place. The said decision shall be taken as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four weeks from the date when the copy of order is received. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 21, 2011 Pankaj*