Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 67184 (ALL)

RAVINDRA KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA AND 2 OTHERS

WRIC/18454/2024 · 2025-04-06

Shekhar B Saraf, Vipin Chandra Dixit

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:49544-DB Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18454 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ravindra Kumar Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamal Kishor Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Devi Shanker Shukla,Mukteshwar Upadhyay Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf,J. Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indian has been filed with the following reliefs :- "i. Issue a writ or direction or order in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 19.05.2024 passed by the respondent no. 3. ii. Issue a writ or direction or order in the nature of mandamus directing and commending the respondent not to execute the impugned order dated 19.05.2024 passed by the respondent no. 3. iii. Issue a writ or direction or order in the nature of mandamus direction and commending the respondent to issue the letter of intent in respect of the retail outlet for the dealership of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited at Kilometers between 19 to 24 at NH-24 Sonauli, Gorakhpur Road." 3. Upon perusal of the impugned order, most effective reason has been provided that the minimum requirement of ROW is not satisfied. 4. Counsel on behalf of respondents has also relied on the inspection report which also simply states that the ROW is not as per requirement but it is not mentioning the exact meters of the ROW in the particular case. 5. Counsel on behalf of petitioner has relied on the report of the National Highway Authority of India that indicates that ROW from the plot of the petitioner is 24.38 meters, which is contended by the petitioner to be sufficient ROW. 6. In light of the above position, we are of the view that the authority had acted in a callous manner and not passed a reasoned order specifying the distance of ROW, in the case of the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and set aside with the direction upon the authority concerned to decide the matter de- novo after going through all the records and after granting opportunity of fresh hearing to the petitioner. 8. We make it clear that the authority must carryout the fresh site inspection, measure the ROW and thereafter pass order in accordance with law, expeditiously preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date. 9. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 7.4.2025 sailesh (Vipin Chandra Dixit, J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf, J.) Digitally signed by :- SAILESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SAILESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad