Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ujwala w/o Santosh Kendre, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging the grant of a retail outlet to respondent no.2, Ravindra s/o Devidas Sable, by respondent no.1, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. The petitioner alleged that the proposed outlet of respondent no.2 was located on the same highway as her existing outlet at a distance of less than 300 meters, which she claimed should be a minimum of 1000 meters. The respondents, including the Union of India and the Collector, opposed the petition. During the pendency of the petition, the Sub Divisional Engineer, Public Works Department, Deulgaon Raja, verified the distance between the two sites and found it to be 304 meters, as communicated in a letter dated 18.08.2017. This verification was brought on record by respondent no.2. The petitioner did not counter this measurement. The court heard arguments from all parties. The petitioner's counsel argued that the distance should be 1000 meters, relying on assertions in the writ petition. However, the respondents' counsel relied on the applicable guidelines, which prescribe a minimum distance of 300 meters. The court noted that the petitioner failed to rebut the verified distance of 304 meters. The court held that the minimum distance required between retail outlets on the same highway is 300 meters, not 1000 meters, and that the verified distance of 304 meters satisfies this requirement. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's claim. The rule was discharged, and no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Petroleum Laws - Retail Outlet Distance - Minimum Distance Requirement - Guidelines for retail outlet spacing - The petitioner challenged the grant of a retail outlet to respondent no.2 on the same highway, alleging that the distance between the two outlets was less than the required minimum. The court examined the applicable guidelines and found that the minimum distance required was 300 meters, not 1000 meters as claimed by the petitioner. The Sub Divisional Engineer, Public Works Department, verified the distance as 304 meters, which the petitioner failed to rebut. Held that the distance of 304 meters satisfies the requirement of 300 meters, and the petition is dismissed. (Paras 2-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether respondent no.2 can be permitted to have a retail outlet on the same highway in the vicinity of petitioner's outlet at a distance of less than 300 meters?
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Minimum distance between retail outlets on same highway is 300 meters
- not 1000 meters
- burden of proof on petitioner to show violation
- verification by public works department is conclusive unless rebutted
