- (1.) S. K. Sen, C. J. In the instant writ petition, stated to be a 'public Interest Litigation', the petitioners seek to restrain the respondents from raising construction/installing a Petrol Pump on plot No. 5-A Government Industrial Estate, Kalpi Road, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the plot in dispute') (in pursuance of direction of Mr. Lalji Tandon, the then Urban Planning and Development Minister, State of U. P. and the consequential Government order dated 28-4-2002 ). The petitioners have claimed to have filed this petition as 'public Interest Litigation'.
(2.) THE case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the plot in dispute, was initially leased out to one Girish Chandra Poddar. After the death of Sri Poddar, his heirs could not develop the land for the purpose for which it had been leased out. THErefore, the proposal of the respondent No. 7 for sub-letting the plot in dispute to Sri B. D. Agarwal was considered by the District Industries Centre. It is mandatory under the terms and conditions of the lease-deed that the plot, in dispute, can be utilized only for the purpose of setting up of an industry and the same cannot be used for commercial purposes. It is alleged that the respondent No. 7 made a proposal for setting up an industry to manufacture certain petroleum products. District Industries Administration permitted negotiation of the sub-letting of the plot in dispute and accordingly, a lease-deed was executed on 20- 7-1999, contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition. It stipulates that no change-either by way of transfer or any conveyance thereafter shall be done without the previous consent, in writing of the Industrial Estate Administration. THE petitioners allege that the respondent No. 7 is bound by the aforesaid terms of the lease-deed. That apart, it is alleged that a hire purchase agreement was entered into by the respondent No. 7 with the Director of Industries, U. P. , contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition, which contains a clause that the land shall not be utilized for carrying on any business of dangerous, noisy or offensive nature and that the property shall neither be sold, mortgaged, assigned nor otherwise conveyed nor transferred except with the previous permission, in writing of the Industrial Estate Administration. THE petitioners allege that the parties are bound by the agreement. In utter violation of the aforesaid agreement, the Respondent No. 7, it is alleged, in collusion with respondent No. 8, agreed for getting the Petrol Pump installed despite the fact that there was no such proposal before the District Industries Department respondent No. 7 has been able to procure the impugned letter dated 27-8-2000, contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, from the concerned Minister directing the Director, Industries Department to give permission and consent for the conversion of the plot, in dispute for commercial use. THE petitioners claim that the proposed Petrol Pump is against public interest, inasmuch as, trading in highly inflammable petrol product is an obnoxious trade and is seriously hazardous to the people, residing in the locality. Respondent No. 7 is main respondent in the present case. It is the case of respondent No. 7 that the petitioners have been able to unnecessarily stall the project of establishment of a world class Automobile Workshop-Petrol Pump within the industrial estate at Kanpur Nagar by obtaining a stay order from this Court. The petitioners are mere busy bodies and it is sheer misnomer to label the present petition as 'public Interest Litigation'. It is alleged that the petitioners have been set up by the trade rival of respondent No. 7, namely, M/s. Kishori Lal Jogendra Lal. Annexure C. A.-7 to the counter- affidavit filed by respondent No. 7 is the objection filed by the aforesaid rival firm. Moreover, petitioner No. 1 resides at a place which is more than 5-6 kilometers away from the plot in dispute. Same holds true for petitioner No. 2 as well. He resides in House No. 118/241 Kaushalpuri, Kanpur Nagar which too is about 6 kms. away from the plot in dispute. The petitioner No. 2 has wrongly described residential address as 123/1-A, which actually is the address of the rival firm, namely, M/s. Kishori Lal Jogendra Lal. This clearly shows the nexus of the petitioners with the rival firm. At least seven or eight petrol pumps already exist in the concerned area. If these petrol pumps do not cause any danger to the ecology, there is no reason for denying the respondent No. 7 to install petrol pump. Heard Sri R. N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri A. P. Sahi on behalf of the petitioners and Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Advocate assisting by Sri L. M. Singh on behalf of the respondent No. 7.
(3.) SRI R. N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate strenuously urged that if the respondent No. 7 is allowed to install petrol pump in the concerned locality, the entire ecological balance will be disturbed and the residents of the locality will be the worst sufferers. He, therefore, claimed that the instant is 'public Interest Litigation'. In support of his contention, he cited two decisions of the apex Court in Chairman Railway Board v. Chandhima Das, (2002) 2 SCC 465 and M. S. Jayaraj v. Commissioner of Excise, (2002) 7 SCC 552. SRI Singh further contended that in order to uphold the cleanliness in public life and rule of law, the bar of locus standi is not as rigorous as in other petitions of adversial nature. In support of this contention he relied upon paragraphs 50 and 51 of the Report in Nilangekar Patil v. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi, AIR 1987 SC 294. SRI Singh vehemently urged that the present is a case of malice in law and, therefore, he urged that the impugned action on the part of the State Government deserves to be deprecated by this Court. In support of this contention, he drew our attention to the law laid down by apex Court in Smt. S. R. Venkataraman v. Union of India and another, AIR 1979 SC 49 and The Regional Manager and another v. Pawan Kumar Dubey, AIR 1976 SC 1766. In reply to the allegation of the respondent No. 7, in the counter-affidavit, that 7 or 8 petrol pumps are already existing in the locality, Sri Singh pointed out that the other existing petrol pumps are outside the vicinity of the Industrial Estate and not within the Industrial Estate. Thus, the plea of the respondent No. 7 to the contrary is misconceived. Moreover, according to Sri Singh, installation of petrol pump is contrary to the policy and Guidelines framed by the State Government as per Government orders dated 18-2-2001 and September, 2001, contained in Annexures R. A. 1 and R. A. 4 respectively to the Re- joinder-Affidavit. A bare perusal of these Government orders will reveal that they clearly prohibit the change of user of the land from industrial to commercial purpose. Precisely, because of this reason. Sri Singh asserted that till date, there does not exist any permission of the Director of Industries, or for that matter, any other officer of the Industries Department. Sri Singh alleged that the respondent No. 7, therefore, contacted Sri Lalji Tandon, Minister who used his good offices to pass an order in favour of the respondent No. 7 in utter breach of the provisions of law. Sri Singh vehemently urged that the action of the State Government in proceeding to accord permission to the respondent No. 7 to install a petrol pump is patently without jurisdiction. It is glaring example of abuse of power having been exercised arbitrarily and maliciously at the behest of the concerned Minister. Sri Singh drew our attention to the contents of paragraphs 5 and 6 of the counter-affidavit of Sri O. P. Srivastava of Industries Department wherein it has been averred that permission and consent, in writing, are sine qua non for change of user of the land. So far as the case in hand is concerned, Sri Singh asserted that a bare perusal of the counter- affidavit on behalf of the Director of Industries reveals that no such permission was ever granted by the Director of Industries or the Industries Department. The impugned order has been passed straightway without at all following the procedures prescribed by law. Sri Singh, therefore, strenuously urged that the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and the petition deserves to be allowed with costs.;