IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 5719 of 2010 alongwith CWP Nos. 6297 & 6398 of 2010 Reserved on: 18.07.2011 Date of Decision: 26.7.2011 CWP No. 5719 of 2010 Sushil Kumar …Petitioner. Versus. Indian Oil Corporation and others … Respondents. CWP No. 6297 of 2010 Isha Thakur …Petitioner. Versus. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd & others … Respondents. CWP No. 6398 of 2010 Rajinder Kumar …Petitioner. Versus. Indian Oil Corporation and others … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. CWP No. 5719 of 2010 For the Petitioner: Mr. Anoop Rattan, Advocate. For the Respondents 1 & 2: Mr. K.D.Sood, Advocate. For the Respondent No.3: Mr. K.S.Banyal, Advocate. CWP No. 6297 of 2010 For the Petitioner: Mr. K.S.Banyal, Advocate. For the Respondents 1 to 3: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. For the Respondent No.4: Mr. Anoop Rattan, Advocate. CWP No.6398 of 2010 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vishal Panwar, Advocate. For the Respondents 1 & 2: Mr. K.D.Sood, Advocate. For the Respondent No.3: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. For the Respondent No.4: Mr. K.S.Banyal, Advocate. 2 Deepak Gupta, J. 1. These three petitions are being disposed of by a common judgement since similar questions of fact and law are involved. 2. As far as CWP No. 5719 of 2010 and CWP No. 6398 of 2010 are concerned, in both these petitions the petitioner grievance is that the private respondents Isha Thakur and the Indian Oil Corporation should be directed that Kisan Seva Kendra allotted to Isha Thakur be set up at village Hathol and not at village Dhaneta. CWP No. 6297 of 2010 has been filed by Isha Thakur and in this she has prayed that the respondents No. 1 and 3 be directed not to issue letter of intent in favour of respondent No.4 and respondent No.4 may not be permitted to set up her retail outlet within a radius of three hundred meters of the proposed outlet of the petitioner Isha Thakur. 3. The Indian Oil Corporation issued an advertisement inviting applications for setting up of Kisan Seva Kendra in various parts of Himachal Pradesh. One such retail outlet was to be set up at Hathol and another at Dhaneta. The outlet to be set up at Hathol was reserved for ladies belonging to the general category whereas the outlet at Dhaneta was reserved for physically handicapped person. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are proposing to set up a Kisan Seva Kendra 3 at Dhaneta and not at Hathol. The petitioner alleged that there is a village known as Hathol Khas which falls within patwar circle Gwalpathar whereas Mauza Hathol which is part of Tehsil Naudaun covers a lot of patwar circles including Dhaneta, Gwalpathar, Beha, Mandyani, Jasooh. The main dispute is whether the Kisan Seva Kendra was to be set up in village Hathol Khas or in Mauza Hathol. As far as the advertisement is concerned, there is no clarity in the same and the column No.2 only states the names of places. Whether this is a town, a village, a patwar circle or a mauza is not clear. However, it is apparent that the name of the place does not necessarily mean a particular village since the other columns relate to block, tehsil, district, State, etc. 5. Admittedly, there is no village by the name of Hathol. The village is Hathol Khas. The advertisement does not name the place as Hathol Khas. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the respondents cannot be bound to set up the Kisan Seva Kendra only at Hathol Khas itself. As far as the word “Hathol” is concerned there is a Mauza known as Hathol and this Mauza includes patwar circle Dhaneta and as such the respondents can set up the retail outlet at Dhaneta. 6. Admittedly, the petitioners in CWP No. 5719 of 2010 and CWP No. 6398 of 2010 had neither applied for the 4 Kisan Seva Kendra and being men were not eligible for the Kisan Seva Kendra, which was reserved for the ladies. Their only case appears to be that they are villagers of the area in question and if the Kisan Seva Kendra is set up at village Hathol Khas, they would have to travel less distance to get items of agricultural use. According to petitioner Sushil Kumar he now has to travel six kilometer to Dhaneta to get these items. Similar plea is raised by Rajinder Kumar. 7. A retail outlet of petrol-pump cannot be set up only at the convenience of the villagers. The corporation and the person setting up the retail outlet have also to see the commercial viability of such a retail outlet. It is for the Indian Oil Corporation to decide which is the best place to set up the retail outlet and the Indian Oil Corporation has clearly stated in its reply that Hathol means Mauza Hathol and not village Hathol Khas. The petitioners have no right to force the respondents to set up the retail outlet at Hathol Khas. Therefore, I find no merit in the petitions, which are dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.10,000/- each. The petitioners shall pay the costs to the private respondent Ms. Isha Thakur. 8. As far as the petition filed by Isha Thakur is concerned, her only grievance is that as per the guidelines of the Indian Roads Congress two or more petrol pumps 5 should not be set up within a radius of three hundred meters of each other. These guidelines are only guidelines and do not have any statutory force of law. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition which is also dismissed. Interim order stands vacated in all the three petitions. 26th July, 2011. ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.