181 .^^.li (Sinqle Bench; Hon'ble Mr. Justice bhirendra Mishra) W.P.(C) No.5097/2009 (Writ Petition U/A 226 <& 227 of the Constitution of India) PETCTIONER Vs RESPONbENTS Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, through its Territory Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. Bijli Nagar, G.E. Road, Bhilai-3, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. 1. Union of India, through Ministry of Petroleum and Exptosives Security Organization through its Joint Chief Explosive Controller, 2nd Floor, 63/4 Sanjay Place, Agra- 282 002 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Food, Man'trQtaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. District Authority, Collector-cum-Distn'ct Magistrate, Collectorate, Raipur (C.G.) 4. M/s K.M.D. Enterpnses Private Ltd., Raja Bhawan, beyond Daga Petrot Pump, Fafadih Chowk, Raipur, through its birector Jasbir Singh Chawta. Present: Mr. Manindra Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sanjay K Agarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Fouzia Mirza, Assistant Solicitor Generol of Indio for respondent No.l, Mr. Bhaskar Pyasi, Panel Lawyer for respondent No.2 & 3. Mr. Bhishma Kingar, Advocate for respondent No.4. ORALORDER (22.9.2009) 1. The petitioner has filed this petition ond has prayed for setting aside the order of Annexure P-1 passed by respondent No.l whereby cancellation of license for operating petrot pump from the subject premises under Rule 152 (1) (1) of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 (for short 'the Rules') is proposed on the ground of termination of teQSe by the owner of the land. It has also been mentioned that correspondences in this regard with the respondent No.3 under Rule 150 of the Rutes have been made. The petitioner has been catled upon to submit his explanation within 30 days faiting which action as per the Rules has been contemplated. ^. Mis,:: ^. .•^•M: 31., ^^: IK ^ 2. The petitioner has also impugned the show cause notice of Annexure P-2 issued by the respondent No.3 on the basis of memo of Annexure P-1 whereby the petitioner has been catted upon to show cause as to why in compliance of memo of Annexure P-1, lNo Objection Certificate' issued under Rule 144 (1) of the Rules be cancelled under Rule 150 of the Rules. 3. Mr. Kingar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 submits that the petitioner is a government company and as such a public sector undertaking wholly owned & controlled by the Government of India. The dispute is between a government compony and Union of India. Referring to the judgment dated 13.5.2009 delivered by the bivision Bench of this Court in Tax Case No.38/2007 (South Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs. Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise & another) it was argued that the instant petition is not entertQinable in the absence of clearance from the Committee on bispute (Cob) 4. On the other hand, Mr. Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner is a government company, however, the respondent No.l by the impugned show cause notice has proposed to concel the license granted to the petitioner for operattng petrol pump from the subject premises under Rule 152 (1)(1) of the Rules. The respondent No.3 has atso issued show cause notice to cancel the 'No Objection Certificate' issued under Rule 144 of the Rules in compliQnce of the memo of Annexure P-1. In these circumstances, this petition may be entertained even in the absence of ctearance from the CoD. 5. In the matters of South Eastern Coalfields Limited (supra), the Division Bench of this Court relying upon the jud9ments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Oit and Natural Gas Corpn. Vs. City Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., Maharashtra (2007) 7 SCC 39, Oil and Natural Gas Corpn. Vs. Collector of Central Excise (1995) Suppt.4 SCC 541; Oil and Natural Gas Corpn. Vs. Collector of Central Excise (2004)6 SCC 437 <& Chief Conservator of Forests, Government of A.P. Vs. Collector (2003) 3 SCC 472. wherein it has been consistently held that dispute between the government departments cannot be contested in m 11[' •Ift' II lil; ^s' '^^'' Court. State/Union of India must evolve a mechanism for resolving interdepartmentQl controversies; disputes between the &overnment departments and public sector undertakings cannot be agitated in the Court in the absence of cleorance from the Cob, held that the appeal is not entertainable in the absence of clearance form the Cob constituted as per directions of the h^on'ble Supreme Court. 6. It is not in dispute that dispute in the instant petition is between a government company at the one hand and Union of India <& the District Magistrate, Raipur on the other. The petitioner has not obtained requisite clearance from the CoD. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the instant petition is not entertainabte in the absence of clearance from the Cob constituted as per directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 7. In the result, the petition is dismissed as not entertainable. However, the liberty is reserved to the petitioner to move this Court after obtaining clearance from the CoD. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ^M.'. ilj:' .•<y:i-. IWli '•^\ :^^. ,'•^1 •:::-^r,' }^^I: