Allahabad High Court Sakthoo vs U.O.I.Thru.Secy.Ministry Of ... on 3 December, 2019 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. 3 Case : MISC. BENCH No. 33229 of 2019 Petitioner : Sakthoo Respondent : U.O.I.Thru.Secy.Ministry Of Petroleum & Natural Gas & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner : Sanjay Kumar Singh,Danish Ansari Counsel for Respondent : A.S.G.,M.E.Khan Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J. Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Solicitor General of India appearing for the opposite party no.1 and Shri M.E.Khan, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3. Facts, in brief, as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner is recorded tenure holder of the part of the land bearing Gata No.1063 situated on the Gurubaxganj to Maurawan Road, VillageGulariha, DistrictRae Bareli. The opposite party no.5 is also recorded tenure holder of the part of the land bearing Gata No.1063. On 25.11.2018, the opposite party no.3 notified online advertisement regarding appointment of Retail Outlet Dealership in the entire State including VillageGulariha and the opposite party no.4 was selected for Rural Retail Outlet Dealership at VillageGulariha. As the opposite party no.4 was not proper land for the opening of the petrol pump, so he entered into a rent agreement with the opposite party no.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the opposite party no.5 forcefully made encroachment upon the part of the land of the petitioner recorded as Gata No.1063. As a matter of fact on record, no demarcation of Gata No.1063 has been made till date and in this regard, proceedings are pending before the appropriate authority. It is further submitted that the representation was made by the petitioner mentioning therein that opposite party no.4 in collusion with opposite party no.5 produced forged document in respect of land as well rent agreement in order to get the Retail Outlet Dealership allotted in his favour, rather the same are not genuine. However, the said representation was rejected vide letter dated 11.11.2019 issued by opposite party no.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the action on the part of the opposite party no.3 thereby rejecting the representation of the petitioner on the ground of delay is wholly misconceived, as such, the same is liable to be set aside. Shri M.E. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the representation of the petitioner has rightly been rejected as per Subclause (2) of 8.9 of Marketing Discipline Guidelines, which reads as under : "The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) will comprise of the following members : (i) A retired Judge of the High Court Member 1. (ii) A retired Government Servant who held post not below the rank of Joint Secretary in Govt. of India or equivalent rank Member 2. (iii) A retired official of PSU Oil Marketing Companies who held the post not below the rank of Director Member 3." We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. It is not in dispute between the parties that as per policy of the guidelines laid down by Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, if a person has any grievance in respect to the allotment of petrol pump, the same is to be made within within 30 days of declaration of the result of the allotment of petrol pump. Further, it is not in dispute, rather admitted between the parties that the petitioner did not submit any complaint in regard to the forged document of the land as well as rent agreement within a period of 30 days of declaration of the result of allotment of petrol pump, that too is not in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India. Accordingly, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned letter dated 11.11.2019 issued by the opposite party no.3. In the result, writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. (Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.) (Anil Kumar,J.) Order Date : 3.12.2019 Mahesh