IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 74 of 2003 (M/B) Bhagwan Pandey S/o Sri Bal Ram Pandey R/o Village Tiliyapur, P.O. Shaktifarm, District Udham Singh Nagar ........ Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal through Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Uttaranchal Govt., Uttaranchal. 2. District Magistrate, District Udham Singh Nagar. 3. District Supply Officer, District Udham Singh Nagar. ....... Respondents Sri S.K.Mandal, Advocate for the petitioner. Sri N.C.Gupta, Standing Counsel for the respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. RAJEEV GUPTA, C. J. (Oral) Sri S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri N.C.Gupta, Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. Petitioner Bhagwan Pandey filed this petition in the year 2003 for the following reliefs: “I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the clause (5) of the press notification (Annexure 3) and reservation section of clause (9) of Government order dated 26th April 2002 (Annexure 2) passed by the respondent no. 1 and 3 to the writ petition. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 3 not to issue any petty dealer license in pursuance of the press notification in the area of Sitarganj, Tehsil (content in clause (5) of Annexure 3) to the writ petition. III. Issue a suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may be deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2 IV. Award the cost of the petition in favour of petitioner.” 3. The petitioner an existing petty dealer appears to have filed this writ petition apprehending more competition in the event of grant of more licenses to petty diesel dealers. 4. The respondents in there counter affidavit have justified the grant of more licenses to petty diesel dealers in paras 3(i) to 3 (iii): “3(i) That on 9.1.2003 an advertisement was published in the daily news paper Danik Jagran and on 8.1.2003 in Uttar Ujala, inviting applications for appointment of Petty Dealers of Licenses there for by 25.01.2003 at serial no. 5 of the aforesaid advertisement/press notification including area 20 Sishona, 21 Lamba Khera, 22 Para Gram (Venkuntpur), 23 Tiliapur. The petitioner Shri Bhagwan Pandey has opposed the aforesaid advertisement on the ground that no petty dealer should be appointed and no license be granted for the petty diesel dealership within the aforesaid area as he is himself as Petty Diesel Dealer at Shakti Farm and has contended that it is not permissible as provided under the G.O. dated 26.04.2002. 3(ii) That the writ petition of the petitioner is rather misconceived and erroneous. As per Uttaranchal Government order dated 26.04.2002 as issued by the Department of Food and Civil Supplies it has been specifically provided that the new allotment should not be made within 8 kms. from the Petrol Pump in the plain area and within 25 kms. within hilly areas. Furthermore, to regulate the supply of High Speed Diesel and to make it available to the consumers at a fixed minimum rate the State Government is fully empowered to regulate and control the supplies thereof as provided under U.P. High Speed Diesel and Light (Maintenance of Supplies and Distribution) Order 1981. 3(iii) As per enquiry and inspection made by the Tehsildar- Sitarganj, S.D.M-Khatima and J.E., Public Works Department-Khatima the distance from the petty diesel dealership shop of the petitioner to the places where the allotment of petty diesel dealership shop is to be made and advertised vide above noted advertisement dated 8-9.1.2003 is much more than the prescribed distances of 8 kms. In this connection the report as submitted by Tehsildar-Sitarganj, S.D.M. Khatima and J.E. P.W.D. Khatima are annexed herewith and is marked as Annexure nos. CA.1. C.A.2 and C.A.3 respectively to this counter affidavit. As such the 3 contention of the petitioner and his writ petition are wholly misconceived, contrary to real facts of the case and is rather misleading hence the writ petition of the petitioner is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with costs.” 5. On consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances spelt out by the respondents in their counter affidavit, we do not find any good ground for grant of any of the reliefs sought by the petitioner. 6. The writ petition, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is herby dismissed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) (Rajeev Gupta, C. J.) 01.05.2006 01.05.2006 A