AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ
Heard Sri Vikas Bahguna, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent, Sri Shailendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the 5th respondent and Sri Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the 6th respondent and, with their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission.
The policy decision of the Government of India, to establish several petroleum retail outlets throughout the country, is subjected to challenge in this writ petition on the ground that prior consent of the second respondent has not been obtained; increase in the number of petroleum retail outlets would result in a concomitant increase in petroleum consumption, and would result in increased air pollution; it would cause needless competition among retail outlets, putting the viability of the existing units in jeopardy; it is unnecessary to establish more retail outlets as at present, as the Government is coming out with an alternative fuel policy; and a multifold increase in the number of petroleum retail outlets would, therefore, result in needless wastage of public money.
While Sri V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Counsel and the other learned counsel appearing for the respondents, would question the locus standi of the petitioner, and would contend that the petitioner is merely a front for the existing petroleum retail outlet dealers, and their endeavour is only to prevent others from establishing their petroleum retail outlets, and thereby avoid competition, we are satisfied that, even on merits, the petitioners have not been able to make out a case warranting interference by this Court.
The questions, whether the existing outlets would suffice to cater to the ever-increasing demand; whether establishment of such outlets would be rendered redundant because of the proposed change in consumption of alternative fuel, etc. are all matters of policy which are in the executive realm, and this Court would, ordinarily, not examine such issues in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, save violation of Part-III of the Constitution of India, or any other law in force.
Sri Vikas Bahuguna, learned counsel for the petitioners, is unable to show us any statutory violation on the part of the respondents, apart from Section 11 of the Petroleum And Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2006 (for short the "2006 Act"). Learned counsel would rely on Section 11 to submit that prior consent of the Regulatory Board is required before petroleum retail outlets are established.
Section 11 of the 2006 Act only deals with the functions of the Regulatory Board, and does not stipulate that prior consent of the Regulatory Board is required for the Petroleum Corporations to establish petroleum retail outlets.
As far as the petitioners' complaint, that increase in the number of petroleum outlets would cause multifold increase in air-pollution, is concerned these are matters which are required to be examined by the Government of India on their attention being drawn to the possibility, of a substantial increase in the number of petroleum retail outlets, resulting in increased air-pollution.
Suffice it, in such circumstances, to permit the petitioners to make a representation to the Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi furnishing material in support of their claim that an increase in the number of petroleum outlets, being established throughout the country, would cause multifold increase in air-pollution. We have no reason to doubt that, on such a representation being made by the petitioners, the Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi will give such a representation its due consideration and, if need be, take necessary action thereafter in accordance with law.
Subject to the aforesaid observations, we see no reason to entertain this writ petition, as the locus standi of the petitioner is itself in doubt. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.