IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 516 of 2011 Date of Decision: 17.03.2011 Smt. Reema Garg ...Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. Ajay Kumar Kansal, Advocate, for the appellant. **** RANJAN GOGOI, C.J.(Oral) The appellant by filing the writ petition out of which this appeal has arisen had sought to challenge the grant of 'No Objection Certificate' by the respondent No.3 for setting up of a Petrol Pump in the close vicinity (300 meters) from the existing petrol pump of the appellant. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the writ petitioner, took the view that the plea with regard to the environmental hazard that would be caused by setting up of a second petrol pump was not founded on any reasonable basis and that the attempt of the appellant- writ petitioner has to be understood to be to prevent a business rival from engaging in the same trade or business. On the aforesaid basis the writ petition having been dismissed this appeal has been filed. LPA No. 516 of 2011 [2] Before us the very same issue has been reagitated by the learned counsel for the appellant and reliance in this regard has been placed on the document enclosed as Annexure P-2. Having perused the said document we are of the view that the circumstances in which the said communication was issued are altogether different and in any case the same does not lay down any principle which can be enforced by the Court. If that is the conclusion that has to be reached with regard to the issue of environmental hazard as alleged on behalf of the appellant, we must concur with the view of the learned Single Judge which had led to the dismissal of the writ petition, namely, that the appellant-writ petitioner has approached this Court only to protect her own business interest. We, therefore, decline to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. (RANJAN GOGOI) CHIEF JUSTICE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE 17.03.2011 'ravinder'