IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.17393 of 2011 Date of Decision.16.09.2011 Usha wife of Sh. Suj Bhan resident of House No.1123, Sector 14, Sonepat, Proprietor Usha Kiran Filling Station village Palri Kalan District Sonepat .....Petitioner Versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., through its Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Panipat Divisional Office, IOC Marketing Complex VII Baholi, Panipat-132140 and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner seeks for enforcement of notification of the Government setting out certain restrictions regarding location of petrol pump. It does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner, who is not an applicant, to take such an objection. It is not a legal right to a person such as the petitioner. The petitioner has no vested interested to say that yet another petrol pump shall not be located within a radius of 5 kms. The issue has been considered by this Court in Sanjeev Kumar Vs. State of Haryana ILR (2007) 1 P&H 227, which held that even a guideline issued under Clause 4.1 of IRC, 12-83 that there shall be a minimum distance of 300 mtrs between two retail outlets could be taken only as a recommendation, so long as the State itself does not issue any such notification making such an interdict. In other words, there is no enforceable right for any person to contend that the location of the petrol outlet would not fall within any particular radius from the existing outlet. In Bhagwan Oil Company Vs. Rajesh (2000) 2 RCR (Civil) 601, Bench of this Court held relying on two earlier Division Bench rulings that "oil company is the sole judge of the circumstances and grounds in which it would grant or decline permission for resitement of the petroleum outlet unless such permission was stated to be totally against law or was palpably arbitrary, it will not be appropriate for the Court to interfere in carrying on of a commercial activity and its location....." 2. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 16, 2011 Pankaj*