THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.16829 OF 2005 27th November 2009 Between: C.Shailaja Reddy. …PETITIONER AND Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, Government of A.P. (Police Department), Hyderabad and one other. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.16829 OF 2005 ORDER: The petitioner, who is a retail outlet dealer of the 2nd respondent- Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., has filed this Writ Petition, questioning the order passed by the 1st respondent in proceedings No.L&O/M7/4571/ 2003-05, dated 27.07.2005, cancelling the ‘No Objection Certificate’ {“NOC” for brevity} granted for adding the HSD (Diesel) facility in her retail outlet. Initially, the retail petroleum outlet, situated at H.No.8-2- 268/1/2/D in Survey No.358 of Shaikpet Village, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, was being operated by the 2nd respondent- Corporation itself. Subsequently, it was allotted to the petitioner. Initially, the outlet was confined to petrol only, and when the 2nd respondent-Corporation wanted to add HSD (Diesel) facility also, it was asked to obtain a license under the A.P. Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980. To obtain such license from the licensing authority, the 2nd respondent was to obtain NOC from the Commissioner of Police. On the application of the petitioner, and after conducting enquiry, NOC was granted on 17.02.2005. The NOC was to the effect of adding HSD (Diesel) facility at the existing MSD petroleum outlet, by converting the MSD petrol bunk into diesel bunk. Based on the NOC granted by the Commissioner of Police, the petitioner was also licensed to deal in HSD and an endorsement, dated 19.07.2005, was made to that effect with the licensing authority. After grant of license, when the 2nd respondent was operating both the petrol and the diesel outlets, the 1st respondent- Commissioner of Police has initiated proceedings for cancellation of the NOC, and when a show cause notice was issued to the 2nd respondent-Corporation in this regard, an explanation was filed by it, indicating the reasons for allowing it to continue the facility of HSD (Diesel) also, in its retail outlet. In the explanation filed to the show cause notice, it is stated that only two-wheelers, three-wheelers and cars can ply and truck movements are restricted on the route where the petitioner’s retail outlet is located, and that the segment of customers is similar to that of MSD i.e., the two-wheelers, three-wheelers and cars. In the explanation, it is further stated that pursuant to grant of NOC, they have already converted the MS tank into HSD tank, as per the instructions, by meeting the safety norms. The explanation also states that they have already installed the Multi Product Dispensers for free flow of traffic and to ensure prompt and efficient service to the customers. In spite of such explanation, the impugned proceedings bearing No.L&O/M7/4571/2003-05, dated 27.07.2005, are issued, cancelling the NOC granted. In the impugned proceedings, it is stated that the reply given is not convincing, and therefore, the NOC issued for adding HSD (Diesel) facility at the existing MS (Petrol) retail outlet is cancelled, for the following reasons. 1) The area in which the retail outlet is situated, measures 683 square yards, giving little scope for heavy vehicular movement and its maneuverability; 2) The location is in a busy center; 3) It is predominantly a residential area; 4) Traffic congestion is likely on this VIP route; and 5) Permitting HSD facility will add more number of vehicles visiting this retail outlet. Challenging the aforesaid proceedings, the present Writ Petition is filed. The impugned order is mainly questioned on the ground that there is no jurisdiction for the 1st respondent to cancel the NOC. It is the case of the petitioner that basing on the NOC, the license to provide the facility of HSD (diesel) is already granted by the licensing authority, and thus, the very purpose of granting NOC is worked out. As such, at this stage, there are no valid reasons to cancel the NOC. It is also the case of the petitioner that there are no changed circumstances for cancellation of NOC. The Deputy commissioner of Police, Traffic, Hydeabad, has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the 1st respondent. The allegations of the petitioner are not denied in the counter affidavit, but it is stated that the explanation offered by the 2nd respondent is not convincing, inasmuch as the area, where the retail outlet is situated, measures only 683 square yards, and therefore, is causing obstruction to the traffic. It is further stated that after considering the explanation offered by the 2nd respondent, the impugned proceedings have been issued, cancelling the NOC. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for the 1st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent. At the outset, it is to be noticed that the 2nd respondent is already operating the retail outlet with MS (Petrol). When it wanted to add the facility of HSD (diesel), it has applied to the 1st respondent for grant of NOC, by converting one of the existing petrol bunks into diesel bunk. After conducting enquiry, the 2nd respondent was issued NOC on 17.02.2005. Consequently, on production of NOC issued by the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent has applied for permission to deal in HSD (diesel) also. The licensing authority granted permission by making an endorsement on the license by including HSD (diesel) also, and thus, the very purpose of granting the NOC is worked out. It is also to be noted that even at the time of issuance of NOC, the site measurements were same, as such, it is not open for the respondents to cancel the NOC on the ground that the area of the petitioner’s outlet is only 683 square yards. There is no violation of any of the conditions from the date of issuance of NOC to the date of cancellation. If, for any reason, the NOC is not to be issued, it is open for the 1st respondent to reject the same on any of the grounds mentioned in the impugned proceedings, but when such NOC is acted upon by the licensing authority by issuing appropriate license, it is not open for the 1st respondent-Commissioner to cancel the license. It is to be noticed that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent were already running the retail outlet in MS (Petrol), and as such, the allegation that the location is predominantly a residential area, and there is the likelihood of traffic congestion on that route, will not stand good. In the absence of the changed circumstances and when the license is already granted acting upon the NOC issued to the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent cannot cancel the NOC, more so, in the absence of any changed circumstances. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned orders passed by the 1st respondent in proceedings No.L&O/M7/4571/2003-05, dated 27.07.2005, are set aside. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) 27th November 2009 RRB