Manish Kumar Yadav v. Union of India & others
Case Details
1 ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.04.25 10:28:40 +0530 2025:CGHC:18553-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 255 of 2025 Manish Kumar Yadav S/o Maheshwar Prasad Yadav Aged About 43 Years R/o Block Colony Main Road Lailunga, Police Station And Tahsil- Lailunga, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. Mo. No.8435790074 versus ... Appellant 1 - Union of India Through Its Secretary, Department of Ministry of Petroleum And Natural Gas, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001 (India) 2 - Territory Manager (Retail) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, 46, Shaheed Veer Narayan Singh Bhawan, Near Ghari Chowk, Raipur, P.S. Golbazar, Tehsil And District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) (Wrongly Mentioned In Impugned Order As Nagar) 3 - Anil Kumar Gupta S/o Premchand Gupta Aged About 30 Years R/o Near High School Kotba, Police Station- Kotba, Tehsil- Patthalgaon, District- Jashpur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
of this Court in Writ Petition (C) No.697/2020 parties “Manish Kumar Yadav Vs. Union of India & others” (Annexure-A/1) and further be pleased to allow the writ petition, is in the interest of justice.” 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No.697 of 2020 (Manish Kumar Yadav v. Union of 3 India and others), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner has been dismissed. 4. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell are that, the advertisement was issued by respondent No.2- Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) on 14.12.2018 for allotment of retail outlet for the location between KM Stone No.18 to KM Stone No. 20 on State Highway No.4 (SH-04) of District Jashpur under the ‘Regular Marketing Plan’ in ‘Open Category’ and, applications were received in Group-1 category, from the petitioner and respondent No.3 and thereafter, a Draw Of Lot (‘DOL’) for the said location was held on 18.06.2019, wherein, respondent No.3 - Anil Kumar Gupta, was selected in online draw and intimation was sent to him to submit Initial Security Deposit (‘ISD’). After completion of due formalities in this regard, the alleged LOI was issued in favour of respondent No.3- Anil Kumar Gupta on 31.01.2020, but, before that, a complaint was made by the petitioner on 09.07.2019 before the Territory Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd, as the land held by respondent No.3 is not situated of State Highway No.4. 5. In order to ascertain the alleged fact, the Territory Manager (BPCL) has sought the information from the office of the Executive Engineer of Public Works Department, who vide its letter dated 03.12.2019, informed that till 31.12.2018, the location between KM Stone No.18 to KM Stone No.20 is SH-04 and 4 named presently as SH-17. It, thus, appears based upon the said information furnished by the office of the Executive Engineer P.W.D., Division Pathhalgaon, District Jashpur, that the said location till 31.12.2018 was SH-04, i.e. when the alleged advertisement was issued on 14.12.2018 and, therefore, the grievance as was raised by the appellant/writ petitioner, vide his alleged complaint dated 09.07.2019 was rejected vide order impugned dated 24.01.2020 and only after the redressal of his grievance by the Competent Authority, the LOI has been issued in favour of respondent No. 3- Anil Kumar Gupta on 31.01.2020. 6. Being aggrieved with the order dated 24.01.2020, whereby, complaint made by the appellant/writ petitioner on 09.07.2019, was rejected by respondent No.2 Territory Manager (Retail), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and, consequent upon issuance of LOI in favour of respondent No.3- Anil Kumar Gupta, on 31.01.2020, the appellant/writ petitioner has filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition (C) No.697/2020 before the learned Single Judge, which was dismissed vide order dated 07.03.2025. 7. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/writ petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is illegal and bad in the eyes of law. He further submits that the Hon'ble Single Bench failed to appreciate the documents 5 dated 22.06.2019, 23.11.2020 and 13.07.2021 wherein, information provided by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Public Works Department, Patthalgaon about the land of the respondent No.3 was situated in State Highway No.17. It has been contended that Section 3 of the Chhattisgarh State Raj Marg Adhiniyam, 2003 provided that the State Government may by notification in the official gazette, declare any road, way or land to be a highway and classify but, in the instant case, respondents have failed to file any notification or official gazette whereby State Highway No.4 renamed as State Highway No.17 or State Highway No.17 renamed as State Highway No.4. It has been further contended that respondent No. 2 failed to comply with the order dated 16.02.2023 whereby a direction was issued to respondent No.2 to produce original record for proper adjudication of the case. It has been submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in passing the impugned order, as such, the instant appeal be allowed and the impugned order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, be set-aside. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter, has rightly passed impugned order dated 07.03.2025, which does not call for any interference by this Court. 6 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as materials available on record. 11. After appreciating the submissions of learned counsel for the parties as also the materials on record, the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order in following terms:- “4. Although, the Petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court, a notification that was issued by the State Government on 2nd May, 2019, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (iii) of the Clause 3, Chapter-II of the Chhattisgarh State Rajamarg Adhiniyam, 2003 (No.12 of 2003), showing the alleged land held by Respondent No.3 covered in Sr. No.17, i.e. “Kunkuri- Batauli- Bageecha- Raikera- Lavakera- Kotha- Lailunga- Gharghoda-Chhaal Road”, but, a bare perusal of it, would, however, show that it was only a proposal that was made by the State Government in this regard. No reliance, therefore, could be placed upon it. 5. In view of the aforesaid background, the Respondent No.2- Territory Manager (Retail) has not committed any illegality in rejecting the alleged complaint raised by the Petitioner vide order impugned dated 24.01.2020 (Annexure P-1) and, consequent upon the issuance of LOI (Annexure R-3/1) in favour of the Respondent No.3 -Anil Kumar Gupta on 31.01.2020, so as to call of any interference in this petition. 7 6. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit is, dismissed. No order as to cost(s).” 12. Considering the matter in its entirety and after considering the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties as also perusing the impugned order, it has been reflected that the notification was issued by the State Government on 02.05.2019 in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (iii) of the Clause 3, Chapter-II of the Chhattisgarh State Rajamarg Adhiniyam, 2003 (No.12 of 2003), showing the alleged land held by respondent No.3 covered in Sr. No.17, i.e. “Kunkuri- Batauli- Bageecha- Raikera- Lavakera- Kotha- Lailunga- Gharghoda- Chhaal Road”, but, a bare perusal of it, shows that it was only a proposal that was made by the State Government and respondent No.2- Territory Manager (Retail) was not committed any illegality in rejecting the alleged complaint raised by the appellant/writ etitioner vide order dated 24.01.2020 and, consequent upon the issuance of LOI in favour of respondent No.3 -Anil Kumar Gupta on 31.01.2020. 13. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the firm view that learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order with cogent and justifiable reasons and as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No.697 of 2020 (Manish Kumar Yadav v. Union of India and others). 8 14.
Arguments
: Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 24 .04.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General, appearing for respondent No.1, Mr. Saurabh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 as well as Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. 2. By way of this writ appeal, appellant has prayed for following relief(s):- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant appeal and set-aside the order dated 07.03.2025 passed by Hon’ble Single Bench
Decision
In the result, the writ appeal lacks merit substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Judge Anu