CWP No. 2458 of 2009. 20.7.2009 Present: Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. M.A. Khan, Central Government Counsel for respondent No.1. Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. with Mr. J.K. Verma and Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate Generals for respondent No. 3 to 6. CMP No. 4805 of 2009: Allowed. CWP No. 2458 of 2009: The present petition has been filed for quashing advertisement Annexure P-6 published in daily edition of The Tribune dated 20.6.2009 whereby respondent No.2 has invited applications for appointment of retail outlet dealers in Paonta Sahib (WML). The petitioners are already dealers of retail outlet on National High Way-72, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur. Their precise case is that the advertisement violates the development plan of Paonta Sahib prepared under the Town & Country Planning Act, 1977. It is also projected that Paonta Sahib is a plain area and the norms prescribed for hilly terrain have been wrongly made applicable by respondent No.2 while calling the applications for appointment for retail outlet dealers. The petitioners are dealers of retail outlet. It is apparent that the present petition has been filed by them to avoid competition. A person who has already been allotted a petrol pump cannot be permitted to stop setting up of more petrol pumps in the vicinity to avoid competition. We are of the considered opinion that they do not have locus standi to assail the notification Annexure P-6 dated 20.6.2009. However, in the interest of justice, we have heard the learned counsel on merits as well. We have gone through the contents of the development plan i.e. Annexure P-4. It will be apt to reproduce clause (6) at page 62 which reads as under: “It was stated in earlier chapter that all the three petrol pumps have been located in a single pocket on KNPD road. Thus all local plus regional traffic has to criss-cross this pocket for refueling purposes. It is therefore suggested that n o additional petrol pump shall be permitted in this pocket in future. Preferably a petrtol pump be allowed o n LPRR road in between Naraingarh and Rajban.” A bare perusal of this clause reveals that it is only a suggestion made that no additional petrol pump shall be permitted in this pocket in future. This cannot be termed as mandatory condition for not setting up new petrol pumps. This question has also been gone into by a Division Bench of this Court in C.W.P. No. 36 of 2007 decided on 11.5.2007. We are in agreement with the ratio of the judgment. The next contention raised by the petitioners counsel that Paonta Sahib is a plain area is also without any substance. A similar plea was also raised in C.W.P. No. 36 of 2007 and it was repelled by the Division Bench. The Division Bench has held as under: "The next question which arises for consideration is whether the site is situated in a hilly terrain or in a plain area. Reliance on behalf of the petitioner is placed on the development plan of Paonta area according to which the area in question has a plain topography entirely different from that of Shimla, Solan etc. It is also contended that there is no material on record to show that the cross slope is more than 25%. In this behalf we may submit that in a writ jurisdiction this court cannot go into the question as to what is the extent of the cross slope. This is a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided in this petition. However, it would be pertinent to mention that even in the petition there is no categorical averment that the cross slope at Paonta Sahib is less than 25%. No doubt an allegation is made that Paonta Sahib is a plain area, but what is the cross slope is not mentioned either in the petition or in the rejoinder. There is no material before us to hold that the cross slope is less or more than 25%. On the other hand, as per the respondents the entire area of Himachal Pradesh is treated as a hilly terrain. Letter dated 12.5.2007 issued by the Executive Engineer, National Highway, Division Solan has been placed on record, relevant portion of which reads as follows:- “This is to inform that NH-72 in the Himachal Pradesh including area of Paonta Sahib passes through the Hilly terrain. Accordingly case of retail out let of M/s BPCL at Km 99/315 of NH-72 was recommended for Hilly Terrain as per requirement of Ministry Guidelines circulated vide letter No. RW/NH- 33023/19/99-DO-III dated 17.10.2003 (Para 3 of Appendix I). The Km 99/315 is in Town Paonta Sahib.” In view of this categorical statement, we have no other option, but to hold that the norms as applicable to hilly and mountainous terrain will be applicable. In case these norms are applied, then there is no violation of the same.” Whether a particular area falls within the expression ‘hilly terrain’ or ‘plain area’ is to be determined on the basis of parameters laid down in the policy. This job has to be performed by the persons who are well conversant with the geographical location of the particular town or city. We need not elaborate on this due to specific findings recorded by the Division Bench of this Court holding Paonta Sahib area as hilly terrain. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. CMP No. 4862 of 2009: Infructuous. (Jagdish Bhalla), C.J. (Rajiv Sharma), J. July 20, 2009. (cr)