IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1553 of 2007 (M/S) Tahir Ali and anr. ……Petitioners Versus State and others …….Respondents Mr. C.K. Sharma, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State. Mr. V.K. Kohli, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. I.P. Kohli, counsel for intervener. Dated:-12-11-2010 Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By means of this petition, the petitioners have sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 27.01.2004, passed by District Magistrate, Nainital (annexure-9 to the writ petition). A further mandamus has been issued directing the respondents not to interfere in the functioning and operation of retail outlet pump at village Aarhupatti (West), Bhimtal (Nainital). Brief facts of the case are that a ‘No Objection Certificate’, which was obtained on 06.06.2003 by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. to set up a retail outlet pump under ‘Company owned and Company operated’ Scheme on plots No. 1316, 1319 and 1320, which belong to petitioners. Petitioners were bhumidhars of the land, which was taken on lease for setting up a petrol pump by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. The No Objection Certificate issued in favour of the petitioners, has been cancelled on the ground that the name of the petitioner-Tahir Hussain, was not mutated in the revenue record and without mutation, the petrol pump was constructed, which is in violation of condition No. B of ‘No Objection Certificate’ dated 06.06.2003. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd as well as on behalf of the State. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., in para-3 (d), has been stated as under:- 2 “That the petitioners were neither allotted nor allowed to run the Retail Outlet of petroleum products, but to the contrary the Retail Outlet was run under the Company Owned and Company Operated (COCO) Scheme by its own officials. One Shri Mujib-Ur- Rehman nominee of the petitioners was engages as Retainer for providing various support services to the Corporation at the said COCO Retail Outlet and Shri Mujib-Ur-Rehman had entered into an agreement on 19th March, 2004. The period of retainership was initially for a period of three months which was extended from time to time till 30th September, 2005, and thereafter it was not extended in view of the policy of the Central Government. The petitioners were never granted any Retail Outlet nor they were permitted to run the same.” Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the averments made in the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., it emerges out that the petrol pump was never allotted to the petitioners nor they were appointed as a retainer for providing various support services to the Corporation. The fact that No Objection Certificate was issued to Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. is not disputed. It is pertinent to mention here that after 31.09.2005, as per policy of the Central Government, a letter dated 22.02.2005, was conveyed to all the State retail outlets by the Corporation through letter No. 6069 (DLG), dated 25.02.2005, COCO Scheme was not extended and thereafter the petrol pump was not permitted to run further. Since ‘No Objection Certificate’ was issued to Indian Oil Corporation Ltd and not to the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner has no locus to file the writ petition to challenge the No Objection Certificate. Therefore, cancellation of ‘No Objection Certificate’ can be challenged by Indian Oil Corporation. The writ petition is devoid of merits. The same is dismissed. (B.S.Verma, J.) 12-11-2010 S 3