CWP No.1689 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CWP No.1689 of 1989 Date of decision : 5.5.2011 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ................Appellant Vs. The District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Hisar and another .......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present:- Mr.Karan Nehra, Advocate, for Mr.Arun Nehra, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.S.S.Gorakhpuria, DAG, Haryana Mr.R.S.Sihag, Advocate, for respondent No.2 --- K.KANNAN, J (ORAL) :- 1. The writ petition challenges the order passed by the District Magistrate cancelling the award granted to the petitioner company to restore patroleum products. This was purportedly in exercise of power under Section 151 of the Petroleum Rules, 1976. This was on the basis that lease had been granted by the Municipal Corporation originally on 21.11.1968 for a period of 10 years and on expiry of this period the petitioner was not competent to hold on to the possession of the property any longer. 2. At the time when the writ petition was filed, a Division Bench of this Court had observed that the impugned order was subject to an appeal before the Commissioner, Hisar Division and he was directed to dispose of the petition without delay and that the writ petition should be posted for hearing. After the petition was CWP No.1689 of 1989 -2- disposed of, the Division Bench has also granted stay of the impugned order. It appears that the Commissioner had disposed of the appeal filed by the appellant on 21.3.1990 itself. It was unfair on the part of the petitioner not to have informed the Court immediately after the disposal of the appeal. The State also did not follow it up to apprise the Court of this incident. 3. The only point that is required to be noticed is whether the cancellation of licence to store petroleum products could be sustained. Rule 151 of the Petroleum Rules, 1976 reads as under:- “151 – Cancellation of no objection certificate A no objection certificate granted under rule 144 shall be liable to be cancelled by the District Authority or the State Government, if the District Authority or the State Government is satisfied that the licensee has ceased to have any right to use the site for storing petroleum. Provided that before cancelling a no objection certificate, the licensee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (2) A District Authority or a State Government cancelling a no objection certificate shall record in writing the reasons for such cancellation and shall immediately furnish to the licensee and to the licensing authority concerned a copy of the order cancelling the no objection certificate.” 4. This has been amended subsequently in the year 2002 and later in 2007. The present rule under the Petroleum Rules of 2002, CWP No.1689 of 1989 -3- which is relevant. Rule 150 is as follows:- “150. Cancellation of no-objection certificate – (1) A no-objection certificate granted under rule 144 shall be liable to be cancelled by the District Authority or the State Government, if the District Authority or the State Government is satisfied, that the licensee has ceased to have any right to use the site for storing petroleum: Provided that before cancelling a no-objection certificate, the licensee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (2) A District Authority or a State Government cancelling a no-objection certificate shall record, in writing, the reasons for such cancellation and shall immediately furnish to the licensee and to the licensing authority concerned, copy of the order cancelling the no-objection certificate.” 5. This rule stipulates that the licence is liable for cancellation if the licensee has ceased to have any right to use the site for storing petroleum products. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the lease was sought to be renewed by a notice issued on 26.2.1977 under the Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1976 in terms of Section 5 & Section 7 Clause (3). Section 5 enables the Central Government to renew any lease held by Burmah Shell on the same terms. Section 7 empowers the Central Government to direct the vesting of the undertaking of the Burmah shell in a Government Company. If the CWP No.1689 of 1989 -4- period expired then the continuance in possession of property of the petitioner could not be sustained. It appears that the property has been transferred by the Municipal Committee to the Transport Authority of the Haryana Government. If the property has become 'public premises' under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, so long as the petitioner is not ejected from the property in the manner in accordance with law, the right to store the petroleum products cannot become unlawful. The cancellation of licence shall have to avait till action for eviction fructifies in the manner known to law. 6. In passing this order, I have taken note of the subsequent event of the order passed by the Commissioner, Hisar on 21.3.1990 and the change in the Rules provided through the Petroleum Rules of 2002. The petitioner's right to store petroleum products shall be preserved till lawful action for eviction and mesne profits is initiated by the Public Authority which has control and ownership of the property, which is admittedlly by in possession of the petitioner. Reserving such liberty for the respondents, it is ordered to permit the petitioner to have the benefit of licence till the eventuality referred to above is worked out. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 5.5.2011 akm