IN IHE H3QH COURT OP JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (OG) WRIT PETITION N0< f76o Q? 2004 / BETWEEN Sita Rarn jsgrawal Q/o Late sarajmal Agrawal, aged about 79 Years Karta of H<»U^^» vfho is the ox^ner of t</s Gopal Oil Mills (Solvent Extraction Plant) Post Bilha District Bilaspur, Resident of Bilha, District Bilaspur (CG) • 7?A<5^-^-' ^^?";.:,.^"^P';\ © O^Tr ^.^li^ »-^A°i^"" ^ETITIONB® A N D ^<°:- l^&61. ^' ../ ^- (Ihe State of cihhattisgarh^ ffirough the Secretary.. Departrn^it of .y-e>^J-2. C^\^' ^11^ Mantralay^ D.K.s< Bulldihg, Raipur (OG). District Magistrate, Bilaspur, Tehsil and District Bilaspur (CG) . S» ^gT^SBlto Meera Agrawal ^o vlshnu jsQrawal^ / 'C^ .'^J.v Resident of 27 %ioli, Bilaspur, Tehsil and ;^!r::?J" District Bilaspur (a3)< c^" r^ ^ ^vsr ^ Qf°w^ RESPONDENTS ^WRIT PETITJON UNDER ARTICLES 22^/227 O?' THE CONSTlTU'nON O?' ) ^NDZA ' HI6H COURT OF JUD2CATURE AT B2L4SPUR. CHH^TTIS^RH Writ Pstltion No. 1760 of 2004 5ita Ram Agrawai - versus " Stats of ChhattiSQarh and two others P05TFOK_QB{>ERpNJ-:Z^iANUABY^005 Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge t%1--'-' ^^— HX^H COURT OF JUbICATURE AT BZLASPUP,, CMHATTZS^ARH Wnt Pstitjon No. 1760 of 2004 Sita ftam .^qrawaj - Versus - State of Chhattisgarh and two others Fresent: - Shri (5.5. Agrawai, Senior Advocate with Shrl Sanotsh Yadu, Advocate^ For the petit?oner\ Shri Sume^h BCSIJGJ, Deputy ^ovt»Advoccst^i For the StaWrespond^nt^ No.i and 2. Shri ManJndr'a Shrivastava, Senior Advocate wjfh Smt, Smita ©haj,Advocate: For respondent No»3. OR DER (Pas^ed on yj /^ - January', 2005) L.C. BHADOO. J. 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Articie 226/227 of the Con^tjtutlon of India, questioning the jeqality', propnety' and correctnes-s of the order dated 21.6.2004 by re-^pondent No 2, the Distnct Magistrate, BHaspur, in Case No.l38/B-l21/03-04 (Anncxur^ P-1), whereby th^ karn^d District M<xglstrate cc^nc^Jbd th^ No ObjecTion Certifjcate gnanted in favour of M/s. 5hree ©opal011 Miij^ on the request of the p^titioner for storinq petroleum produet namely, Hexoine. 2. Srlef facts ieading to flling of this wrs't petitjon are that the petltioner herein and hi^ ^on nameiy, Vi^hnu Agrawa! - hu^band of re^pondent No.3, and Ramakant Agrawal, anoth^r son of ths petltionsr, formed Q partnership firm in the name of M/s. Shrec (5opaS ftice A Oii Miiis Pvr Lta\ Th©re.after,th@y d©cidecito ^et up a private iimitsd company and accordingiy, they pr®paredArticies of Association on 18 June, 1979 and got it registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and ail the assets 2of6 of M/5, Shree <?opai ftic©& Oi) Mill^ Pvt, Lta, were transf^rred to th^ newiy register-ed private limited company M/s. Shree ^opai Oil Miiis Pyt* Ltd. in which pre.sent petitioner Sita ftam Agrawal, Vishnu ^9rawai - husband of raspond^nt No3/ and Ramakant A9rawai, another son of the petitioner herein were the DJrectors. InttiGJly, the petitioner herein was the Managin9 Director. However, a^ born out from the record, the petitioner herein in the year 1991 resJgned from the post of ManaQinQ &irector, and before the death of Vishnu Agrawaj, hu^band of respond^nt No,3, on 10.3.2004, hei wu^ workln9 as the MGnagino Djrector of M/s. Shree 6opaJ OjJ Miils Pyt. Ltd. However, on aecount of certain di^putes bctween the famijy inember^ ^jnc@ ia^t 8-9 years, M/$. Shree ^opa.i Oi! AAJIt^ Pvt. Ltd. Is clo^ed and is non- functionGi. 3, In due cour^e of timc., the hu^band of re^pondent No.3 her@in fited a ciyjj suit for permansnt Jnjunction/ agajn^t the p^titlon&r herein and brother Sanwana Agrawal, showing hjmscif as Manaaing Director, not to interferc in the affairs of M/5, Shree (5op<sl Qil Miii^ Company a^ Sita Ram Agrawal, the pgtitionar herein, has aiready resigned from the post of Managing Director and defendant No.2 Sanwarla ^9rawal has air^ady ^eparated himself from the Company. Howctvsr, that came to be dismissed and even the appeGJ was a}so dismissed, In that suit femporary injunction filed by the hu^band of re^pondent No.3 vva^ abo dismissed and the appeoi against the same was atso dismissed. However, thereafter, husband of respondent No,3 Vishnu ^grawGJ fiied another ^uit on behalf of AV^, Shre^ &opai Osi AAH!5 Pvt« Ltd. as a MGnanaing Director of that miii aQdnst ths Detitioner herein and another brother Scnwaria Agrawal; that came to be regi^tered a^ Civii Suit K4o.26-A/2000 which was decided on 13th February, 2003; and that sujt WQS dismissed to the extent of decJarinQ the property of the Company. How©v©r/ist was heid that the Co.Tipany was entltted for possession of thc house on payment of thc court fees, In para 25 of 3 of6 the jud9ment, th©Court heid that the property' b©Ion9Sto the joint Hindu family and that property was never transfer'red to M/s. Shree ^opal Ojl AAiiIs Pvt. Ltd. Howeyer, that Judgment is not finai as both the partie^ hava fikd firl$t app^a! which is pending before the High Court. It is surprising that these persons are changing their stcind according to char^e in the circumstances, at tlmes they ciaim that the property beiongs to Private Limited Company M/s Shree SopaJ OiJ Miiis and at times they ciaim that the property is of Hindu Undivided Famiiy. 4. The petitioner herein fsled an application on 29.1.2004 before the Djstrict Magistrate, Bilaspur, for grant of No Objection Certificate for obtdnjng the iicense to store Hexane, the petroieum product, in the oH ,ynili premiscs, and that applscation was moved by the petjtioner' herejn showlng himself as Proprietor of M/s, 5hree ©opalOii MiIJs Pvt, Ltd. The No objection Certifieate was granted and based on that the petitionsr h^r^in a!so obtained licens^ from ths &^partment of Expiosives, Nagpur. However, in the meantime, Vishnu AgrawaJ, The .Managing bir^ctor, died on 10.3-2004» Whcn rc^pondent No.3, thc wifs of Vi^hnu Agrawai, came to know about this fact, she fited an objection before the District Magsstrate on 5.5.2004 (Annexure R-3/4) rdsing ob jection that ^he is the A^anaging &irector of AA/^. Shre^ 6ropa! Oil MiHs Pvt. Ltd'.. and Sita Ram A.Qro.wo.i is not even haying share in The Company as he withdrew his ail amount of ^hare on 16-4<1993. On receiving this appljcation, the Oistr-ict AAagiStr'Qte, Bitespur, issucd notjce to the petitioner herein ar?d conducted enquiry, After conductin9 enquiry and recording eyicience of the partss^, vsde impugned order the Oistrlct Maaistrate cancelJed the No Objection Certifjcate under the proyi^ion^ of Ruie 150 of the Petroieum ftujes, 2Q02 (hereinafter referred to as lthe RuIesQ. In the impugned order, the learned District Magistrate after relying on the judgments of the civil Court !ri@ntioned that th©petitioi^er hereln had resi^ned from the post of Managing Director of M/s. 5hree 6opd Oil Mil!s Pvt.Ltd. on 4of6 20 AAarch, 1991. Th®{sarnsd District Mcigistrats rslying on para 38 of the Judgment of civii Court heid that ieQVitig the "esjdentiGJ premises of the Company other premises were Sn possessjon of the Company, and ^inca on enquiry Sita Ram Agrawai ha^ not been ab!e to ciear his position about his status jn AA/s. Shree 6opcsi Oii Miils Pvt. Ltd., the dispute re9ardin9 property of the Company j^ pendjng before the High Court, therefore, In the situatJon, No Objection Certifjcate coinnot be given to Sita Ram Agrawai. 5. I have heard iearned coun.'sei for The par'ties. 6, Learned counsei for the peTitloner submitTed thaT belnq head of the Hindu Undivided Famiiy, the petitioner wa^ entitied to move for No Objection Certificate, therefore, he moved the application within nght and the District Magistrate without any vaiid reasons cancelted the No Objection Certificate, 7. On the o-rtier hand, tearned counsei for respondent No.3 ar-gued thiat jn the first instance, the husband of fespondent No.3 was the Managing &jrector of the Company and the civil Court ha^ ajready held that except the residentiaJ premises the whoie propert^ was Jn possession of the Company. Being the Managing Director, Vishnu Agrawal wa^ in the po5sessjon and that matter i5 the subject matter of iitigation before the civil court and now the appeaj is pending before the Hjah Court, therefore, the petitioner was not eritltteci to get the No Objection Certificate, that too by misieading the District MagisTrate showing himseif as the Proprietor of the property, whereas, he had alrsady resigned from the post of Managing birector1 in the year 1991 and withdrew ai! his share amount. he further argued that unless the order impu9rsea is pervers^ and wjthout juri^djction thi^ Court und^r the extra-ordinary jurisdiction cannot exerclse the power of judicia! rsview. Even if two yisws are possibte, this Court is entitied to interfere with th^ di^cretioncry order passed by th^ Di^trict ^-" 5 of6 M^i^trate, On facts when there i^ di^pute between the famjiy member's r'egarding the property in question, No Objection CertificQte cannot be granted in favour of the petitloner* 8, Havin9 heard ieamed coun^ei for thc parti©s,havina re^ard to th^ facts and cir'cumstences of the case and perusai of the record, it is on admitted position that the property in question is under JJtlgation Gnd there \€^erious di$put@ among th^ family m^mbers about the property m questjon and in thot connection first appeaJ js pending before this Hi^h Court. Facts mentioned above in the eariier part of thls order makes ciear about the dispute between the porties. The petitJoner herein showing himseif as the sole Proprietor of M/s, Shree (5opa{ Oii Mtiis Pvt, Ltd, moved an application befo*M@ the District A^agistrate for obtainjng the No Objection Cer-tlflcate and on that strength he obtained thc No Objcction Certificate, whereas, he i^ not the Propnetor of th^ propErty. This writ petition hs has fited as the Karta of Hindu Undjvided Famiiy, whereas, the guestjon is STJ}! under dispute as to whether the property in question beion9^ to the Hindu Undivided Famiiv or to M/s. Shree 6opd Oil Miils Pyt. Ltd. In any case, Jt is not disputed that the husband of respondent No.3 was son of the patitionsr and he wa5 ths Managing bir^ctor of th^ Comparsy tlji hi^ death on 10,3.2004, therefore, the interest of r^spondent No,3 and iegai heir^ of Vi^hnu Agrawai is there. Therefore, without obtaiFiing the consent of other members or if it is conssdered as Company then uniess a decision is taken in the meeting of the Directors of the Company, th©petitioner herein aion©wa^ not entitlsd to moye for "No Objection Certiflcate" showing himseif as the Proprletor of the Company. In this connection, Ruie 150 (1) of the Ruies is relevant which envisages itiat lla no-objection certlficate gralited under Rule 144 shaIJ be iiabie to be cancelled by the District Authority- or the State Sovernment, if the District Authority or the State 6 of 6 ^overnment as satisfied, that the licensee has cea^ed to have any right to use the site for storing petroleum". Ruie 150 (2) of the ftules ertvisages thot Ha District ^uthority or a State 6?oyemment canceliing a no-objection certificate shdi record, in writing, th© rcQSons for such canceifation and shai! immecliGteiy furnish to the iicensee and to the licensing authority concernsd, copy of the order cancelling the no-objection c©rtificateff. Th@r©for©,the bi^trict Ma9i^trat© i^ ve^ted with the di^cretionary power of issuing "No Objection Certificate" for ston'ng the petrojeum product. As has be@n mentioned above, there is ^erious dlspute between the family members of the petmone.r her-ein regarding the property in question and concealing that fact the petitjoner obtoined "No Objection Certiflcate". On ©nquiryvide the impugn^a' ordcr, the Oistrict Magistrate reached the conclusion that there Is sersous dispute between the famiiy members, therefore, in the csrcumstanc^s, the "Mo Objection Certificate" granted is liable to bs cancelkd. 9. On facts, I am of the opinion that the vlew taken by the District Magi^trate is not m any way peryerse and contrar^ to the record or it i^ not an order pa^ssd without jurjsdiction. Th^ p^tltioner has falied to show that how he is soieiy entitled to use the premises, therefore, the District Maaistrate has riahtJy exercised the Jurrsdiction avaibbb under Section 150 of the Ruies. The petitioner hGS not been able to make out a case for interference by this Court under th©extra- ordinary juri^diction for* quashing th^ ord^r in que^tion. 10.In the resuit, the petition is devoid of any merit, the same is Jjabie to be dlsmsssed and it is Gccordingiy, dismissed* No costs.____—— Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge .bomo