Vishal Agrawal v. Bharat Pertoleum Corporation Limited

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 3105 of 2017 Vishal Agrawal S/o Shri Kailash Agrawal, aged about 36 years, R/o Lakhanpur, Tahsil Lakhanpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Bharat Pertoleum Corporation Limited S/o A Government Of India, Interprises, Through Its General Manager, HO 12/ ENF Maker, Towers, Cuffe, Parade Post Box No. 19949, Mumbai, Registered Office Bharat Bhawan, 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Raod, Ballard Estate, Mumbai ( Maharashtra )

2. Senior Regional Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Shahid Veer Narayan Singh Complex, Gandhi Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. General Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, H O 12/ ENF Maker Towers, Cuffe, Parade, Post Box No. 19949, Mumbai, Registered Office Bharat Bhawan, 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai ( Maharashtra )

4. Chief Vigilance Officer, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, H O 12/ Enf Maker Towers, Cuffe, Parade, Post Box No. 19949, Mumbai, Registered Office Bharat Bhawan, 4 & 6, Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai ( Maharashtra )

5. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Through Its Senior Regional Manager, VIP Road, Telibandha, Ravigram, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

6. Balram Singh Dhurve, S/o Jugeshwar Singh R/o Village Rajpurikala, Post Lakhanpur District Surguja Chhattisgarh

7. Collector, Surguja District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

8. National Highways Authority Of India, Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways, Through Its Chairman, Head Office, G- 5 & 6, Sector 10, Dwarika New Delhi 110075 ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate.

For Respondents No. 1,2& 3 :

Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate.

For Respondent No.5 :

Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate.

For Respondent No.6 :

Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate.

For Respondent No.8 :

Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Advocate.

For Respondent/State :

Mr. Dhiraj Wankhede, G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 21/11/17 1.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner would submit that the petitioner has made a complaint to the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 on 11.10.2017 against the installation of regular retail outlet alloted to respondent No. 6 at Juna Lakhanpur, Surguja which is contrary to the norms of Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, but it is pending consideration since then and has not been decided till date. Therefore, directions may be issued to the respondent authorities to expedite the same. 2.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3.

The prayer appears to be fair and reasonable and is accordingly allowed.

4.

Be that as it may, the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 are directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner's complaint expeditiously in accordance with law after hearing both the parties. 5.

At this stage, Mr. Pali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 6 would submit that copy of the petition has not been supplied to him. It is directed that copy of the writ petition be supplied to him. 6.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to cost(s).

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Priyanka