CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2678 OF 2011 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 22, 2011 M/s Raja Jang Filling Station, V&PO Karamgarh, District Sri Muktsar Sahib .....Petitioner VERSUS Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Bathinda and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Karan Nehra, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Three Civil Writ Petition Nos.2678 of 2011 (M/s Raja Jang Filling Station, V&PO Karamgarh, District Sri Muktsar Sahib Vs. Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Bathinda and others), 2705 of 2011 (Smt.Reema Garg Vs. Union of India & others) and 2706 of 2011 (Shailender Garg Vs. Union of India & others) are being disposed of through this common order as common question of law arises in these cases. The facts have been taken from Civil Writ Petition No.2678 of 2011. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2678 OF 2011 :{ 2 }: The petitioner is a partnership concern and is running a filling station by the name of M/s Raja Jang Filling Station. The present petition is filed for quashing the `No Objection Certificate' issued by respondent No.3 and for issuing direction to the respondents not to allow installation, construction of petrol pump/fuel station at Village Kattianwali. Similar prayers are made for opposing the installation of petrol pump at different places but on the identical grounds in the remaining two writ petitions. It is stated that the proposed site of the new filling station is situated at distance of 4 K.Ms from the existing petrol pump of the petitioner. Plea is that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have suppressed the facts to obtain `No Objection Certificate' from respondent Nos.3 and 4. The petitioner has accordingly requested the respondents not to permit the installation of the proposed fuel station and so the present respective writ petitions have been filed. At the outset, the respective counsel appearing in these cases were asked to show as to how the guidelines could be enforced through writ jurisdiction. Instead, the counsel for the petitioners made submission that the land is forest land and environmental clearance has been fraudulently obtained by misleading facts. The counsel really did not have any answer, when asked to explain as to how he would then justify running of his filling station within the vicinity of the area, if the proposed filling station is likely to pollute the environment. If this plea is accepted, it may tend to effect the running of petrol pump. In fact, the opposition in all these cases apparently is to the opening of the new filling station CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2678 OF 2011 :{ 3 }: near to the locations of the petitioners existing station as it is likely to have some effect on their respective business interests. This seems to be their prime concern rather than their overt concern for environment as expressed in the petitions for the sake of it to make out a case to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Though not put to any notice but counsel for one of the Petroleum Company has appeared before the Court and has drawn my attention to some of the judgments earlier passed by this Court. In the case of Environment Society of India and another Vs. Administrator, Chandigarh Administration, Union Territory , Chandigarh and others, 1997(3) PLR 239, this Court had not accepted similar plea regarding increase in pollution because of increase in number of filling stations. This was not found to be well founded. As is apparent, this case was filed by Environmental Society of India, unlike the present cases, which have been filed by the persons running the filling station. It would sound ironical to notice that the petitioner would plead for clean environment by opposing the grant of new licence but would have no qualms to run their own filling station unmindful of its effect on the environment. In Ganesh Chandra Hazarika Vs. State of Assam and others, AIR 1981 Gauhati 36, the High Court has clearly held that by granting permission for installing another petrol pump in the same business area would not violate the fundamental right of business. The petition was not held maintainable. In this regard, the Court has observed as under:- “Applying the above principles to the facts of this case it is CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2678 OF 2011 :{ 4 }: found that the right to instal a Petrol Pump at the said Road Junction is as much a fundamental right of respondent No.6 as that of the petitioner to have installed his own Petrol Pump, and so long Respondent No.6 exercises his fundamental right without impairing the like fundamental right of the petitioner, and without molesting, threatening, intimidating or by otherwise violent means, no injury can be said to have been caused to the petitioner, who, therefore, has no locus standi to challenge the impugned order on the ground. No certiorari shall, therefore, issue on this ground.” In this very judgment, the Court has viewed that the requirement of distance while granting no objection for installing new filling station is not such a condition, which is statutory and is only recommendatory in nature for the industry. A Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.43483 of 2010 (Mahtab Ahmad Vs. Union of India Thru Prin. Sec.Mini of Pet. And others), while considering the guidelines relating to distance, has observed that these were issued by Indian Road Congress. These guidelines were held not statutory, which could be enforced through Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the guidelines have already been issued by the Government of India as well as by all Companies for citing the outlets and no breach was made out. The petitioner has failed to establish any breach of statutory duty or obligation towards him on the part of the respondents. He has also failed to establish any injury or damage of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2678 OF 2011 :{ 5 }: any kind, which the statute was designed to give protection. It is safe to hold that the petitioner has not been able to establish any violation of any statutory condition or any such obligation, which can be enforced through writ petition. The reference by counsel for the petitioner in the case of T.N.Godavarman Thirumulkpad etc. Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 1228, would not help the cause of the petitioners in any manner. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in this case, was dealing with running of saw mill, which was considered to be non-forest activity and this could be done after permission from Central Government. The petitioners are themselves running filling station in an area and can not object on the ground, where the filling stations are being allowed after `No objection'. No case for interference is made out. Dismissed. February 22, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE