TIP Essential When Identity Based On Belated 'Alias' Claims; Conviction Can't Rest On Improved Witness Testimonies: Supreme Court Conviction Based On Flawed Identification Cannot Be Sustained In Law: Supreme Court Acquits Sri Lankan National In UAPA Case Penalty For Misdeclaration Of Power Capacity Is Strict Liability; No Need To Prove Intent Or 'Gaming': Supreme Court Authority To Appoint Includes Power To Dismiss; Visitor Can Terminate 'First Registrar' Under Transitional Provisions: Supreme Court State Cannot Use Delay Or Contractual Clauses To Deny Statutory Compensation For Land Acquisition: Supreme Court State As Model Employer Cannot Deny Regularization Benefits To Workers Due To Its Own Clerical Lapses: Supreme Court Section 106 Evidence Act | Husband’s Failure To Explain Wife’s Unnatural Death In Matrimonial Home Completes Chain Of Circumstances: Supreme Court Tender Condition For Out-Of-State Bidders To Submit EMD Via Demand Draft Not Mandatory If Clause Uses 'May': Supreme Court Affidavit Is Not 'Evidence' Under Section 3 Of Evidence Act Unless Court Orders Its Use Under Order XIX CPC: Supreme Court Exclusion Of Natural Heirs Not A 'Suspicious Circumstance' To Invalidate Will If Testator Provides Reason: Supreme Court 18-Year-Old Rendered 100% Disabled Entitled To Compensation For Loss Of Marriage Prospects And Dignity: Punjab & Haryana HC Right To Life Under Article 21 Prioritizes Preservation Of Mother's Life Over Reproductive Autonomy If Termination Poses Fatal Risk: J&K High Court Director’s Involvement In Company Affairs A Disputed Fact; High Court Cannot Conduct ‘Mini-Trial’ To Quash Section 138 NI Act Complaint: Punjab & Haryana HC Abuse Of Process: Bombay High Court Quashes FIRs Against Lawyer & Ex-Police Chief Sanjay Pandey; Says Complaints Motivated By Vengeance Magistrate Not Bound To Order FIR In Every Case Under Section 175(3) BNSS If Complainant Possesses All Evidence: Allahabad High Court High Court Can Initiate Suo Motu Inquiry Against Judicial Officers Based On Information; Sworn Affidavit Not Mandatory: Gujarat High Court Lack Of Videography, Independent Witnesses During Contraband Seizure Relevant Factors For Granting Bail Under NDPS Act: Delhi High Court

High Court Upholds NOC for Fuel Station: No Infirmity in Operation Found by State Agencies

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling on the 3rd of November, 2023, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a petition challenging the operation of a fuel station established by respondent No.10. Justice Jagmohan Bansal, presiding over the case, stated in his judgement that there had been no infirmity found in the station’s operation by state agencies over the last three years, emphasizing the smooth functioning of the establishment in question.

The petitioner, Amit Kumar, had approached the High Court with allegations that the fuel station in question was set up in violation of specific guidelines, including those pertaining to the minimum distance from intersections and the space required for a service road. The initial contention rested on guideline breaches, with the petitioner referring to a distance of merely 287 meters from an intersection, as opposed to the 300 meters stipulated by Clause 4.5.1, and concerns over the availability of sufficient space for a 7 meters service road as mandated by Clause 5.2.

However, the respondents, including the Union Ministry of Road Transport and Highways and others, contested these claims. They maintained that the petrol station had been allocated legitimately to respondent No.10, who had subsequently set it up in 2020. It was highlighted by learned counsels for the respondents that the Deputy Commissioner issued the No Objection Certificate (NOC) in line with Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, after securing clearances from various departments.

The court observed, “The petrol station is working since 2020 and respondent authorities have issued NOC after scrutinizing applicable instructions as well as guidelines." The judge pointed out that the petitioner, who is a competitor of respondent No.10, had not availed himself of the appellate remedy against the NOC issued by the Deputy Commissioner, which he could have pursued as per Rule 149 of the 2002 Rules.

Justice Bansal remarked on the competitive nature of the case, stating, “The petitioner is a competitor of respondent No.10 and he is raking issues just to avoid competition.” It was further noted that during the last three years, no issues had been reported by the state agencies regarding the operation of the petrol station.

In conclusion, the court found the petition to be without merit, emphasizing that it did not deem it appropriate to revoke the NOC at this stage. As a result, the petition was dismissed, along with any pending applications associated with it. The ruling underscores the court's stance on regulatory compliance and fair competition in the commercial sector.

Date of Decision: 03.11.2023

Amit Kumar Vs Union Ministry of Road Transport and Highways and Others

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/3_November_2023_Amit_Kumar_vs_Union_Ministry_Of_Road_Transport.pdf"]

Latest Legal News