Rajan Bhatia v. Union Of India & ORS.

$~41 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 231/2024 and CM APPL. 1054/2024 RAJAN BHATIA .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Gaurav Raghav, Adv.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

.....Respondents Through:

Mr. Shoumendu Mukherji Senior Panel Counsel with Mr Aniruddha Ghosh Ms Surabhi Tuli, Advs for R1.

Ms. Purnima Maheshwari advocate with Mr. Mukul Aryan, Advs for R-2.

Mr Akshay Makhija, Sr Adv with Mr.

Kunal Kalra, Adv and Mr Shekhar Gupta law officer BPCL R-3.

Mr. Mohit Sharma, Adv for R-4.

Mr. Tushar Sannu, standing counsel along with Ms. Shambhavi vatsa, Advocate for R-5.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

O R D E R

% 29.01.2026 1.

The petitioner claims to occupy a rear site flat located at 1st Floor at a building at 3B/6 Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi - 110002. The petitioner submits that the building on its left adjoins a petrol pump (Raizada Motors). The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

It is submitted that a Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) station has been added and is being modified/ expanded within the same limited premises with respondent no.2- Indraprastha Gas Ltd. (IGL). The petitioner further submits that CNG station with elevated structure to store multiple CNG cylinders is being constructed within the Petrol Pump. It is, thus, stated that all the actions are being done without due approval of the government authorities and causing unbearable problem/nuisance to the petitioner. 2.

The respondents in their counter-affidavit have stated that the CNG station is operating strictly as per Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization (PESO) approved layout, valid licenses and Gas Cylinders Rules, 2016. The upgrade to 1200 scmh compressor, an elevated cascade is lawful and maintains all mandatory safety distances. It uses PESO certified equipments and causes no hazards.

3.

Having considered the submissions and the documents placed on record, the Court finds that the nature of directions which the petitioner is seeking may not be effectively granted by this Court. The submissions made by the petitioner will require adjudication, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence. The Writ Court, therefore, would not prefer to undertake such exercise, more importantly when the facts are highly disputed.

4.

If the petitioner has any grievance with respect to the alleged nuisance, the remedy would lie under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. If the petitioner claims violation of any easementary rights, in that case as well, he will have to institute a properly constituted suit.

5.

Having granted the aforesaid liberty, the petition, along with pending The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

application, stands disposed of.

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JANUARY 29, 2026/aks/mj The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.