The Karnataka High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the order related to Indian Oil Corporation Limited, whereby the representation of the petitioners raising certain grievances against the establishment of retail fuel outlets, has been negative.
The Counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the establishment of retail fuel outlets can be done only on the lands that are converted to nonagricultural purpose; there are other compliances under several legislations; such compliances having not being accomplished, the grievance of the petitioners as aired in the subject representation ought to have been duly addressed; the rejection of the mechanical rejection of the representation therefore, is liable to be set at naught.
The Counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation Limited opposes the petition by filing the statement of objections on 03.02.2023 pointing out that all compliances have been done and only thereafter the fructification of establishment of fuel outlets happens.
Having heard the counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit declined indulgence in the matter inasmuch as the submission made on behalf of the answering respondents is vouched by the material placed on record in the form of Annexures to the statement of objections. Added the representation of the petitioners has been duly considered by the ninth respondent-IOC in the right perspective and the impugned order has been made.
It is also pertinent to note that as a matter of protocol compliances are insisted upon as the pre-conditions for the establishment of retail outlets, that cater to the essential needs of the public at large.
The High Court was also impressed by the submission for the panel counsel appearing for the respondent-IOC that the compliance orders that need to be produced before the establishment of retail outlets can be subject matter of challenge under the provisions of the statutes concerned and therefore, nothing comes in the way of petitioners availing the statutory remedies instead of rushing to the PIL court.
“It hardly needs to be stated for exercising PIL jurisdiction, a concrete case has to be made out and that the seekers of relief in such jurisdiction have to demonstrate that they do not have any other alternate and equally efficacious remedy. Invocation of PIL jurisdiction, we reiterate, cannot be a matter of course”, the Bench said.
In the above circumstances, this petition being devoid of merits is liable to be and accordingly dismissed by the High Court . However, the Court granted liberty to the petitioners to seek appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum, if grounds do exist therefore and all contentions in that regard are kept open.