Court’s Decision:
The Calcutta High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner, Dayamoy Ghosh, challenging the decision of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) regarding the rejection of his offered land for a retail outlet dealership. The Court upheld HPCL’s decision to follow the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) guidelines strictly, particularly focusing on the use of the 2011 Census data for population classification to determine whether the area was considered an urban or rural stretch.
Facts:
The petitioner had applied to HPCL for a retail outlet dealership in the district of Bankura, West Bengal. HPCL had advertised for retail outlet dealership locations across various parts of the state. After the petitioner’s application was successful, HPCL’s Land Evaluation Committee inspected the proposed land. The inspection revealed that the land did not meet the necessary criteria, particularly regarding road proximity and classification under the NHAI guidelines.
HPCL subsequently rejected the land based on the findings of the committee, citing that the land did not qualify for a retail outlet dealership. The petitioner had asked for reconsideration, offering alternative land within the same location, but this request was denied by HPCL. The petitioner filed a writ petition (WPA No. 4103 of 2022), which led to the issuance of a direction from a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court for HPCL to dispose of the petitioner’s representations within 60 days. Subsequently, HPCL issued a memo on April 20, 2022, once again rejecting the petitioner’s land offer, which led to this writ petition.
Issues:
The key issue before the Court was whether HPCL’s rejection of the petitioner’s land offer was arbitrary and illegal, given the petitioner’s argument that the location should be classified as an “urban stretch” under NHAI guidelines due to the population exceeding 20,000. The petitioner challenged HPCL’s reliance on the 2011 Census data to classify the land as part of a rural stretch.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioner contended that the decision by HPCL was arbitrary and legally unsound. The petitioner’s primary argument was that the land should be categorized as an urban stretch under the NHAI guidelines because the population of the nearby locality, Purandarpur, was over 20,000. The petitioner produced a certificate from the local Gram Panchayat indicating that the population of Purandarpur was more than 20,000, contrary to the census data from 2011, which showed the population as less than 20,000.
Further, the petitioner challenged the NHAI’s classification of the land as part of a rural stretch based solely on the 2011 Census. He argued that the land, located on a national highway, should meet urban stretch criteria since it was in an area with significant development and infrastructure.
Respondent’s Arguments:
HPCL, on the other hand, defended its decision by referencing the NHAI’s guidelines, which stipulate that land along national highways must be classified according to official census data from 2011. According to HPCL, the population of Purandarpur (based on the 2011 Census) was less than 20,000, and as per NHAI’s classification, this meant the area was a rural stretch. HPCL also argued that the Gram Panchayat’s certificate regarding the population was not valid, as the Panchayat had no authority to determine population data, which was the domain of the official Census process. Additionally, HPCL highlighted that the petitioner’s proposed land did not meet the NHAI’s road requirements, specifically the distance from any intersection and median gap.
Analysis of the Law:
The Court closely examined the NHAI guidelines concerning the establishment of retail outlet dealerships along national highways. According to these guidelines, areas where national highways pass through towns with a population of 20,000 or more, as per the 2011 Census, should be classified as urban stretches. On the other hand, areas with populations under 20,000 should be categorized as rural stretches.
The Court also reviewed the relevant provisions in HPCL’s brochure for retail outlet dealerships, which required strict adherence to these guidelines. The guidelines specified that any land being considered for a retail outlet must be evaluated based on the classification of the stretch (urban or rural) and other criteria such as proximity to roads and intersections.
Precedent Analysis:
The Court relied heavily on the NHAI guidelines, which clearly define how urban and rural stretches are determined. The Court did not find any existing precedent that would allow for the overriding of official census data in such circumstances. It was emphasized that the census figures, as per the official process, are binding and must be adhered to in determining the eligibility of land for retail outlets.
Court’s Reasoning:
The Court concluded that HPCL was within its rights to reject the petitioner’s land based on the NHAI guidelines. The Court noted that while the petitioner relied on a certificate from the Gram Panchayat regarding the population of Purandarpur, such certificates were not valid in determining population figures, which are the domain of the official Census.
The Court agreed with HPCL’s stance that the land in question fell within a rural stretch, as per the 2011 Census data. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that HPCL had followed the guidelines set out in the dealership brochure and the NHAI’s guidelines regarding road distances and intersections. The Court found that there was no legal basis to challenge HPCL’s decision to reject the land offer.
Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the writ petition, finding that HPCL had acted in accordance with the relevant guidelines and had not acted arbitrarily in rejecting the petitioner’s offer of land for a retail outlet. The Court found that the petitioner’s reliance on the Gram Panchayat certificate was misplaced, and the guidelines, based on the 2011 Census data, had been correctly followed.
Implications:
This judgment underscores the importance of following official guidelines and census data when classifying areas as urban or rural for the establishment of retail outlets along national highways. It also reinforces the idea that local authorities, such as Gram Panchayats, do not have the legal authority to issue population certificates for the purpose of national infrastructure planning. This ruling could serve as a precedent for future cases involving the classification of land for retail outlet dealerships or similar projects along national highways.
