CWP No. 4626 of 2010 -1- In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … CWP No. 4626 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 21.11.2011 Gurinder Singh ....... Petitioner Versus Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & others ........ Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Kumar Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Narain Raina **** Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Moudgil, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 10 **** 1. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? Rajiv Narain Raina, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by Gurinder Singh son of Jaswinder Singh resident of village Mangli Khas, Rahon Road, District Ludhiana in the guise of public interest litigation challenging the allotment and setting up of a petrol pump by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd, the 1st Respondent to the 10th respondent Balkar Chand to establish and run a retail outlet granted under the reserved category quota meant for Scheduled Castes. It has been pleaded in the petition that the offending petrol pump is located on a blind curve of the State Highway and would be an accident prone area and public hazard and, therefore, the allotment/construction is contrary to public interest. The retail outlet is located in village Mangli Tanda, Rahon CWP No. 4626 of 2010 -2- Road, Ludhiana between KM 11 & 12 and lies in Khasra No. 21//19/1, 21//22. A prayer has been made that an enquiry be ordered from an independent agency and criminal cases be registered against those involved in the allotment of the petrol pump, including the civil authority that granted the ‘No Objection Certificate’. 2. Facts of the case relating to the allotment of the petrol pump have lost their significance before us in view of the affidavit dated 25.4.2011 filed by the contesting 10th respondent-Balkar Singh, the allottee of the retail outlet from Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. which discloses that the present petition is a false, frivolous and vexatious petition initiated as a proxy litigation to thwart competition by none other than a relative of the petitioner who runs a petrol pump nearby. 3. Para 4 of the affidavit is reproduced below:- “4. That the applicant-respondent seeks to place on record of this petition a copy off police report alongwith statement of writ petitioner dated 21.12.2008 containing the signatures of writ petitioner who has candidly admitted therein that there is petrol pump of son of his maternal aunt Harinder Singh at some distance which is why he had been raising objection to the setting up of petrol pump. The applicant-respondent no.10 further seeks to place on record a copy of complaint dated 8.7.2008 which was apparently made by the writ petitioner to various authorities and bears hiss signatures. A comparison of signatures both on the police report dated 21.12.2008 and on the complaint dated 8.7.2008 clearly show that signatures on complaint dated 8.7.2008 are not of the writ petitioner. The signatures of the writ petitioner on the writ petition, vakalatnama and on the two documents being placed on record by the applicant- respondent would lead to irresistible conclusion that the writ petition has been manipulated by the interested party who apprehends competition due to setting up of the present petrol pump.” CWP No. 4626 of 2010 -3- 4. We have examined the statement of petitioner Gurinder Singh son of Jaswinder Singh in the police investigation appended with the affidavit. It reads thus :- “It is stated that I am resident of above address. I am doing agriculture work. I had made a complaint against setting up of a petrol pump on road from my village to Rahon. There is danger of accidents because of this petrol pump as there is a sharp turn. About 8 kilometres ahead of this petrol pump, there is a petrol pump of my maternal aunt’s son Harinder Singh. Because of this petrol pump risk of accidents can increase.” 5. We have also examined the written statements filed by respondents No. 4 & 6 through the District Controller, FCS & CA, Ludhiana. It has been disclosed in the written statement that the petitioner is a person interested in the location of the disputed petrol pump and that on his complaint in 2006 made to the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana the location of the Pump was examined from the point of view of the allegation of being close to a blind curve which might result in accidents. Thereupon, an enquiry was conducted and the Senior Town Planner in his report dated 11.7.2008 found that the curve is at a distance of 30 meters from the proposed site and could not be labeled as a blind curve as it was at an angle of 15 degrees. Accordingly, the enquiry was closed. Similarly, the SSP, Ludhiana by his letter dated 1.12.2006 had returned findings that the proposed site of the petrol pump would not cause any traffic problem. The District Town Planner, Ludhiana has filed a separate counter affidavit and has also stated that the alleged sharp curve is not so in fact and free flow of traffic would not be hindered. We have also perused the written statement of the 1st respondent BPCL. They have also clearly stated that it is a prompted litigation and deserves to be dismissed. The motive has been clearly shown that one Harinder Singh, the son of the petitioner’s maternal aunt, CWP No. 4626 of 2010 -4- has a petrol pump running at some distance and it is this that has prompted filing this litigation apparently as a proxy for his cousin Harinder Singh. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the documents and the respective pleadings. 7. We find that the petition grossly suffers from suppressio veri and suggestio falsi. It pre-eminently deserves to be dismissed on grounds of not only suppression but concealment of material facts. It has been, without doubt, a colossal waste of precious time of the Court which could have been utilized for a just cause awaiting decision. We take very serious view of the matter as it pollutes the fountain of justice apart from interfering with the administration of justice. It is verily a private interest litigation which deserves to be shunted out forthwith but not without imposition of exemplary costs. The petition is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/-. The petitioner is directed to deposit Rs. 50,000/- within 10 days of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The cost would be deposited with the Legal Services Authority, Punjab at Chandigarh with proof of payment placed on record of this case. We direct that the 9th respondent- the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana to cause the service of a certified copy of this order on the petitioner and intimate the date to the Registrar General of this Court so that no dispute remains of the date of knowledge of this order. In case there is a failure to deposit the cost within 10 days as ordered the petitioner would be further saddled with additional costs of Rs. 50,000/- within the next 20 days thereof and would then also be liable to face proceedings for contempt. We further direct the Registry of this Court to transmit a certified copy of this order to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana for compliance. These directions are necessitated as the CWP No. 4626 of 2010 -5- petitioner may not come forward to apply for and receive this order from the registry. (M.M.KUMAR) (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE JUDGE November 21, 2011 ‘sp’