Case: Devidas Rama Chari Vs. S Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited

else, even if it is founded on the allegation of infringement of his legal right, has to necessarily depend upon unblame worthy conduct of the person seeking relief, and the Court refuses to grant the discretionary relief to such person in exercise of such power, when he approaches it with unclean hands or blameworthy conduct. The supreme Court cited with approval what Sir barnes Peacock had to say in Lindsay petroleum Co. Vs. Kurd, ( (1874)5 PC 221), thus: "now the doctrine of laches in Courts of equity is not an arbitrary or a technical doctrine. Where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy, either because the party has, by his conduct, done that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it, or where by his conduct and neglect he has, though perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet put the other party in a situation, in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted, in either of these cases, lapse of time and delay are most material. But in every case, if an argument against relief, which otherwise would be just, is founded upon mere delay, that delay of course not amounting to a bar by any statute of limitations, the validity of that defence must be tried upon principles substantially equitable. Two circumstances, always important in such cases, are, the length of the delay and the nature of the acts done during the interval, which might affect either party and cause a balance of justice or injustice in taking the one course or the other so far as it relates to the remedy. "( 12 ) AS seen from the observations of the Supreme Court, which are squarely applicable to the facts of this case, the petitioner has approached this Court with an unexplained delay of about four years and the Court is certainly not expected to assist such a petitioner who has been tardy and indolent and, who, by the passage of time has allowed respondent no. 3 to set up the petrol pump/retail outlet by investing considerable amount of money. As said before, in doing the same, respondent No. 3 has certainly changed his entire way of life and it will not be proper to displace him from the same. ( 13 ) A submission on behalf of the petitioner was also made that a petition once admitted could not be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and in support of the submission, reliance, amongst others, was placed on the case of S. Gurmej Singh Hira singh Vs. The Election Tribunal, Gurdaspur and Ors. (AIR 1964 Punjab 337), wherein the Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High court had held that undue delay as a circumstance disentitling the aggrieved party to invoke the Courts jurisdiction under Article 226 is obviously not a statutory rule of limitation. Further the Court had observed that indeed it is in part inspired by the consideration that the time of the Court should not be wasted by invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction after long delay. The party seeking assistance of the Court is accordingly expected to be reasonably prompt and vigilant in approaching the Court. If, therefore, the Court, after hearing the petitioner, admits the writ petition and issues a rule nisi and at the hearing after actually adjudicating upon the merits of the controversy, comes to a positive conclusion in favour of the petitioner, that may also be a factor which, to some extent, may reasonably weigh against the refusal to exercise discretion in granting relief to the aggrieved party. The controversy raised in the proceedings would have inevitably to be considered by the Court and when the matter comes up on appeal, at a later stage.( 14 ) NEEDLESS to observe that the Full bench has not laid down any broad proposition that if a petition is admitted, the same has got to be necessarily decided on merits. ( 15 ) ON behalf of the respondents, our attention has been drawn to a Judgment of the division Bench of this Court in the case of Bajaj Auto Ltd. and Ors. Vs. The Union of India and Ors. (1992 (2) Bom. C. R. 366), wherein this Court observed thus :"another argument advanced was that once a rule is issued, there is no escape for the constitutional Court than to pronounce a decision on merits. We are unable to accept that as an inviolable and inflexible proposition. A rule is likely to be issued on the basis of the prima facie evaluation of the contentions projected in a writ petition. Quite often, final hearing takes time. That is our sad experience. It may subsequently transpire that the Rule was issued wholly erroneously. This may be in evidence by a return or even demonstrated sometimes in the course of the hearing on inter-locutory relief. If the Court comes to know of the circumstances which make it realize that the mistake was committed by it in issuing the rule, it does not stand to reason that the party guilty of such misrepresentation or suppression of facts, should receive from the Constitutional Court an indulgence and luxury in the form of compulsory adjudication on the merits of the case". ( 16 ) ON behalf of the petitioner, no effort has been made to persuade us to take a contrary view to the view held by the Division bench of this Court in the case of Bajaj Auto ltd. and ors. Vs. The Union of India and ors. (supra ). We too have no reason not to follow the same. In the circumstances, the petitioners contention that once the petition is admitted, the same has got to be decide on merits, cannot be accepted. ( 17 ) IN view of the above, we are not at all inclined to interfere with the decision of the Company in allotting the said petrol pump/ retail outlet in favour of respondent No. 3.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]In our opinion, within the same constituency there may have been different places which could be within the municipal areas as well as outside such limits and also there could have been places which were more commercially viable than others. The same could be said in relation to the saidroad. Considering the guidelines, to which reference has been made, we are of the prima facie view that the company was required toat least twice in case no suitable place was available in Shiroda. The location at Shiroda, which was advertised, has to be considered as a location within the area comprising of Village Panchayat of Shiroda, because there is a certificate from the Village Panchayat, which was produced by respondent No. 3 in support of his plea that there was no place available to set up the said petrol pump at5 ) WE are of the view that the action of the Company has got to be considered as arbitrary because the Company has not followed its own guidelines. For the sake of transparency, in public action the Company was required, even after Industry Members concurred regarding the change in location, to advertise again and call for fresh applications for dealership, since the location was admittedly changed from one Village to another and at a place which was more advantageously situated. Nevertheless, we are of the view, considering the facts of this case and gross delay and laches on the part of the petitioner, that it will be inequitable to grant any relief in favour of the petitioner as against respondent no.7 ) AS already stated, the petitioner has not at all explained the delay of almost four years in approaching this Court with this petition, which is again in the nature of a public interest litigation because it is not the case of the petitioner that he did apply for the dealership of setting up the petrol pump, when it was advertised for Shiroda Village or for that matter he was capable of arranging any land at borim Village to set up the same. The petitioner has also not stated that he was not aware that the petrol pump was commissional onat Borim. Admittedly, the petrol pump was set up at the instance of respondent No. 3 at the junction of two roads at16 ) ON behalf of the petitioner, no effort has been made to persuade us to take a contrary view to the view held by the Division bench of this Court in the case of Bajaj Auto ltd. and ors. Vs. The Union of India and ors. (supra ). We too have no reason not to follow the same. In the circumstances, the petitioners contention that once the petition is admitted, the same has got to be decide on merits, cannot be17 ) IN view of the above, we are not at all inclined to interfere with the decision of the Company in allotting the said petrol pump/ retail outlet in favour of respondent No. 3.