2020 (6) TMI 726 - HC - Indian Laws

Validity of proposal to open a petroleum retail outlet by the 10th respondent - challenge is mainly made on the two grounds namely proposal is against Ext. P1 guidelines issued by the Indian Road Congress with regard to the distance and on the violation on the conditions stipulated under Ext. P3 order passed by the District Collector while permitting to reclaim and fill up the land by the predecessor in interest of the 10th respondent. HELD THAT - In the affidavit filed on behalf of Essar Oil Limited, Kochi (10th respondent in the writ petition), it is averred that the NOC was issued on the basis of the consent by the land owner. Thereafter, the owner of the property has also submitted an appropriate application under the Municipality Building Rules for making constructions in the proposed site. In the writ petition, a statement has also been filed on behalf of the Central Government, wherein, it is stated that the proposal for access permission for construction of an approach road to the proposed new petrol/diesel retail outlet mentioned in the writ petition falls along State Highway. Therefore, it is contended by the 10th respondent in the writ petition that it is the respective State Government, which is responsible for issuing any guideline and granting access permission to the fuel station along the State Highways. The powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on each High Court is independent, and each High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is empowered to decide independently notwithstanding the interim order granted by a High Court in India, and even when a final decision is rendered interpreting a Central law on the grounds of competence of legislation. Whether it be legislation, delegated or subordinate legislation, it is trite law considering the difference in the views expressed by different High Courts, on a particular subject or subjects, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has approved the views expressed by some High Courts and disapproved the contrary views expressed by other High Courts. On this proposition, we do not propose to burden the instant judgment with the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The interim order of the Madras High Court has no binding effect on this court - there is no illegality or irregularity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the proposal for opening a petroleum retail outlet by the 10th respondent.
2. Compliance with the Indian Road Congress guidelines regarding distance.
3. Violation of conditions stipulated under the District Collector's order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenge to the Proposal for Opening a Petroleum Retail Outlet by the 10th Respondent:
The writ petition challenged the proposal to open a petroleum retail outlet by the 10th respondent. The main grounds for the challenge were non-compliance with the Indian Road Congress (IRC) guidelines regarding distance and violation of conditions stipulated under the District Collector's order. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by following the judgment in W.A. No. 27 of 2020 and connected cases, holding that the No Objection Certificate (NOC) issued in favor of the 10th respondent and the commencement of the outlet would be subject to the direction contained in the judgment of the Division Bench.

2. Compliance with the Indian Road Congress Guidelines Regarding Distance:
The appellant contended that the proposal for the petroleum retail outlet was against the IRC guidelines regarding the distance. The learned Single Judge, however, noted that the withdrawal of the IRC Guidelines had been stayed by the Madras High Court. Despite this, the learned Single Judge opined that the case was primarily governed by the judgment of the Division Bench in the Writ Appeal, which did not consider the IRC guidelines as binding.

3. Violation of Conditions Stipulated Under the District Collector's Order:
The appellant argued that the learned Single Judge failed to consider the second ground of challenge, which was based on the violation of conditions stipulated under the District Collector's order. The order (Ext. P3) imposed a restriction against reclaiming or filling up the land further. The appellant contended that this restriction was not considered by the third respondent before issuing the NOC. The learned Single Judge did not address this issue in detail, leading the appellant to argue that the matter required reconsideration.

Interim Orders and Precedential Value:
The appellant relied on an interim order passed by the Madras High Court to argue that the learned Single Judge failed to consider its effect. However, the court clarified that interim orders do not have precedential value and are not binding on other courts. The court cited various judgments, including Empire Industries Vs. UOI and Vishnu Traders v. State of Haryana, to support this position.

Precedents and Judicial Discipline:
The court discussed the doctrine of precedents and the binding nature of judicial decisions. It emphasized that each High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is empowered to decide independently, notwithstanding interim orders granted by another High Court. The court cited several judgments, including Union of India v. Raghubir Singh and State of Punjab v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd., to explain the principles of binding precedents and judicial discipline.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the interim order of the Madras High Court had no binding effect on the Kerala High Court. The decision of the Division Bench in W.A. No. 27 of 2020 was binding on the writ court. The court found no illegality or irregularity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ appeal. Pending interlocutory applications were also closed.