IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.10087-10090 OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.17742-17745 of 2007)

Lake Development Authority, …Appellant Nainital Through Chairman

Vs.

Heena Khan & Ors. ….Respondents  

O R D E R

Leave  granted.  

2. The first respondent wanted to have a retail outlet for the petroleum  

products of HPCL, at Bellview Compound, Tallital, Nainital. 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. According to first  

respondent, the appellant neither granted nor refused sanction. Therefore, the  

first respondent approached the High Court by filing WP No.1067/2004.

3. The High Court has  passed a series of orders in the said proceedings.  

It appointed an Advocate as a conciliator 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On  6.12.2006,  the  said  order  was  withdrawn  and  the  Chairman  of  the  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 court. 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. 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 construct a petrol  pump (retail  outlet)  at  the originally applied  

plot. 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 allowed the said  

modification application also on 2.5.2007. Thereafter,  the High Court has  

initiated contempt action suo moto and issued a notice dated 18.8.2007. At  

that stage, the appellant approached this Court challenging the orders dated  

12.12.2006, 28.3.2007, 2.5.2007 and 18.8.2007 on several grounds.  

2

4. On the  facts  and circumstances  of  the  case  and on perusal  of  the  

orders, the least that can be said about the aforesaid orders is that they are  

unsustainable.  However,  at  this  stage,  learned  counsel  for  the  first  

respondent  submitted  on  instructions  that  the  first  respondent  will  

unconditionally  withdraw  the  writ  petition  itself  and  make  a  fresh  

application  to  the  appellant  in  accordance  with  law  for  sanction  with  a  

request to consider and dispose of the same expeditiously. He also submitted  

the impugned orders may be set aside without considering them on merits.  

5. On the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the request of  

the  first  respondent  for  withdrawal  of  the  writ  petition  is  worthy  of  

acceptance.  

6. In view of the above said request, we set aside the orders of the High  

Court of Uttaranchal dated 12.12.2006, 28.3.2007, 2.5.2007 and 18.8.2007  

and permit the first respondent to withdraw WP No.1067/2004 with liberty  

to apply afresh  for sanction. If and when such an application is made, the  

appellant  will  consider the same uninfluenced by what had transpired till  

now and in accordance with law. We are sure that having regard to the fact  

3

that the issue had been pending for several years, such application may be  

disposed  of  expeditiously  if  the  first  respondent  complies  with  all  the  

requirements of law.  

………………………..J (R. V. Raveendran)

………………………...J (A. K. Patnaik)

New Delhi;  November 26, 2010

4