IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 1260/2006 Reserved on: 12.10.2009 Decided on: 7.12.2009 _____________________________________________ Savita Devi. …Petitioner. Versus Union of India and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. Advocate General for respondent No.4. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, J. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was allotted gas agency at Nagrota Surian. The distributorship agreement was entered between the petitioner and respondent No.3 on 30.8.1999. Petitioner made several representations to respondent No.3 either to increase the number of gas connections or to re-locate/re-site the gas agency. The representations made by the petitioner were duly considered and 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 respondent No.3 decided to re-locate the petitioner’s gas agency at Baddi in the year 2007. Mr. Dushyant Dadwal has strenuously argued that once respondent No.3 has decided to relocate/re-site the petitioner- company at Baddi, it was not open to respondent No.2 to issue advertisement whereby applications were invited from open category for the allotment of gas agency at Baddi. He then contended that the decision of respondent No.2-compnay to open gas agency at Baddi was not permissible as per the professed norms. He lastly contended that new gas agency of respondent No.2 could not be permitted to come up within the radius of 15 kilometers. Mr. K.D. Sood has vehemently agued that the decision to open new gas agency was taken in the industrial meeting held on 9.9.2004 in which representative of respondent No.3-company also participated. He then contended that as per new norms, it was open to respondent No.2 to open new gas agency at Baddi. He lastly contended that respondent No.3 knew about the advertisement, which appeared on 18.9.2006 and despite that, it has decided to re-locate/re-site the petitioner-company at Baddi. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings carefully. The petitioner has been allotted gas agency by respondent No.3 and the distributorship agreement was entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.3 on 30.8.1999. The industry meeting was held at Shimla on 9.9.2004. The text of minutes of meeting reads thus: 3 1. “Reference Minutes of the Industry Meeting held on 11.8.04 at Mumbai, the group collected the data on advertisements released by all the oil companies for locations in Himachal Pradesh (As per enclosed Annexure). 2. The marketing plan locations of all the three oil companies were clearly marked out in the list and it was decided that there would be no additional proposals at these locations and within 15 kms of trading area, unless the location warrants an additional distributorship based on the existing potential between all the oil companies put together. 3. Locations already advertised but falling within the trading area of marketing plan locations were identified and deleted from the list since commissioning of these distributorships would affect the viability of the marketing plan locations. 4. The locations falling within the trading area of recently commissioned/unviable distributorship were also identified and dropped, on mutual consent. 5. The locations advertised by all the companies were tabulated district wise. 6. Locations-wise review was jointly conducted for considering the possibility of dropping/retaining the locations. 7. Marketing Plan locations already commissioned in the recent past, LOI issued but yet not commissioned, interviews held but LOI not issued and locations where interviews are yet to be held have been considered for arriving at the feasibility of the locations under OMP. 8. By unanimous consent of all members present, a total of 1 location has been finalized for the Industry Plan under OMP i.e. reference at Sr. No. 48 i.e.-Baddi in District Solan ( refer annexure).” 4 The representatives of respondent No.3-company had also participated in the deliberations. One location had been finalized in the industry plan under OMP i.e. reference at Sr. No. 48-Baddi in District Solan. In sequel thereto, an advertisement was issued by respondent No.2-company on 18.9.2006 inviting applications from the eligible candidates. It was meant for open category. The petitioner has no locus standi to assail the decision of respondent No.2-company to open a new gas agency at Baddi. The decision has been taken after due deliberations in the meeting held on 9.9.2004. The Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas has also issued letter dated 29.11.2004. It is clearly stipulated in this letter that Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs) may expand the coverage to new areas rather than to re-distribute the existing areas. Respondent No.3 throughout knew that decision has already been taken to open gas agency at Baddi by respondent No.3. The decision to re-locate/re-site the petitioner-company has been taken, in principle, on 1.2.2007 and final decision was taken on 27.7.2007. In between an advertisement stood issued on the basis of Annexures R-1 and R-2, respectively on 18.9.2006. The present site is out side the master plan. In fact, it would not make any difference whether it was outside or within the master plan. In today’s scenario principles of laissez-faire should prevail. A person, who has been already allotted gas agency cannot question the wisdom of another Oil Company to open new agency if it conforms to all the norms in the area of operation. The petitioner has failed to substantiate in what manner her rights have been 5 violated or infringed by opening a new gas agency at Baddi. In fact, the viability has been gone into by respondent No.2 by getting the feasibility report. The copy of the market survey for LPG distributorship feasibility at Baddi is Annexure R-3. It is evident from the bare reading of this report that Baddi could have two distributors. The viability has also to be taken into consideration on the basis of geographical areas in semi-urban and rural markets. The underline principle for opening new gas agency/relocation/re- sitement is that the customers should be given best services. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, it is held that there is no illegality or infirmity in the decision of respondent No.2 to open a new gas agency within the radius of 15 kilometers. Consequently, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 7.12. 2009. *awasthi*