The High Court allowed the review petition by order dated 28.3.2007 and directed the grant of sanction to first respondent within fifteen days, a licence to companystruct a petrol pump retail outlet at the originally applied plot.
By order dated 12.12.2006, the High Court disposed of the writ petition purportedly recording an undertaking of the Chairman of the appellant that the appellant District administration would give an alternative land with an NOC to the respondent within one month.
Thereafter, the first respondent filed an application for review seeking a direction to the appellant to grant permission to respondent to establish a petrol pump at the original site.
He filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the appellant to issue formal sanction to enable him to establish, install and run the retail outlet.
Again, the respondent applied for modification seeking a direction to the appellant to release the sanction plan within one week or to permit him to proceed on the basis of deemed sanction.
The High Court has passed a series of orders in the said proceedings.
It appointed an Advocate as a companyciliator to settle the dispute on 14.11.2006.
On 6.12.2006, the said order was withdrawn and the Chairman of the appellant was required to be present on 12.12.2006 in companyrt.
According to first respondent, the appellant neither granted number refused sanction.
Therefore, the first respondent approached the High Court by filing WP No.1067/2004.
The first respondent wanted to have a retail outlet for the petroleum products of HPCL, at Bellview Compound, Tallital, Nainital.
Leave granted.
