XI-HC—78 ^ ~3:s3l ^i<<i<7i<<, giTfly'is, (sKfliyy MWdl *t<l* "V^ 200 an^'iys f<;-fi+ TTSTT 3fn^5T 5h*tich t- an^OT 'vw (4<lf'j«i<iff) 'g'RIIW ^lfel SII^T S.B. : HOH'BLESHRI W.P.fCl Petltioaer Vers Respondents 1. 2. 21.1.2008 Shri D.P. Saraf, petiti^ Heard. 2. The petitioner has fi^ Coastitution of ludia agailist reUefs; ra ^ii^'tflT^ 'RT*1^ff ^'fel3t' •rf^l^$l< iTaifgiiaii^r JU8TICE DHIREBDRA MISHRA So. 7301 of 2007 16 D.P, Saraf, Age 48 years, S/o Khatanand Saraf, R/o Qt.No. K-22, 15 Block, S.lii.C.L. Colonv, Korba. State of Clihattisaarh, Through CoUcctor, Bilaspur. Union of India (Bharat Sangh) Through Chief ControU.er of Explosivc, Block A, 5th Storey, C.G.O. Coiaplex, Seuunri HiUs, Nagpur (Maharashtra) ner in person. cd ttus pedtion under Artide 226 of fhe respondeats for fhe foUowing fhat fhe |respondents should comply wifh the judgmeat) aud decree dated 25th August 2007 dclivered 1 bv fhe learned Additional District Judge, B4aspur iu Civil Appeal No. 1 l-A/05 and act in acArdaace wifh law. — 3II^[.'°RI l^'fi'li WITSD^I *1 ^- 3sq' •^wivi^, fs-<f\wi<s,, ^v^W^, ^ Kl NIM^I **11* WI, 200 SII^T 'WISR (Ipf^B^tT) wiiw ^ifsff sii^r 1. (ii) fiu) that the Ucence to ooerated o' transferredl that conta|upt against tht fhe responlleuts petitioner. iespondent No. 2 should not issue |the owncr of the petrol pum.p being (rer the land of the petitioner for any place. of Couut proceediugs toe inittated respondeats, peualty be imposed on and fhe satue be aiyarded to the ta|upt 3. Grievance of fhe petitl( issued by fhe respondents declared void by the judgm|ent learned Additional District Ji| about fhe aboive judgment dated 7.9.2007 (Aimexure puinp as per Rules 153 & 15| no action has beea taken addressed a letter dated 14.S|. for caiiceUation of Ucence No. immediate efifect. Howevt proceedu^s for issuance of somc offaer place; wbich is 4. It was contauded thal speci&caBy provides that ev^ry WilI<T(<ftl *11+1flf'^ [«t^l<f^i^H ii3Tfin3]I^f |oner is that No Objection Certificatc for operating petrol pump has been dated 25th August 2007 by the idge, Bilaspur. He persoaaUy appriscd [to respondeut No.l vlde application '/ 2) and prayed to close fhe petrol ofPetroleum. Rules, 1976. Howrever, |on his appUcation so far. He also .2007 to respondent No. 2 aud prayed I.P. 196 (Old No. M.P. 628) wifh ^r, the respondents have uritiated iceiice for operatmg petrol pump from cdntrarv to law. Rule 153 of Petroleum Rulcs, 1976 •y Ucence graated under these rules WW^ ^T^uil^, —FS/59— 8/20m —30,GUU. 311^1.^1 Ri-fi* WT 311^1 "5KW ^- ^ ^S^^W^i, QT^WI'a, Rlril+fy MIMdl sbtil* WI, 200 sii^yr 'V3R! (4<<f-i«<<{tr) TCiiwtitor aii^i lil shall stand canceUed, if the site for stormg petroleuiu. cancelled bv fhe District Ai accordance wifh sub-rule ( Court has ah-eady passed a petitioner aaainst £he Objection Certificate as itleg4l wifhout conseut of defendant/respondent No. therefore, in view of canceUed. lijcaisee ceases to have any right to fhc tod if the no-obiection certificate is ilfhoritv or fhe State Qoviernuient in ^) of Rule 151. Siuce the competcat llecree of declaration in favour of the declaring reaenral of the No and void as the sarne vras accorded plaintiff/petitioner and the has no legal right to continue it. 153(l)(i)(u) fhe Ucence stands respo|udents tihe Section 5. ReUance is placed 01 Supreme Court in the matt M/s Bharat Petroleum Corbn 20Q5J3t 8CCD 1622. 6. I have heard the pedtit the pedtion aud the docunia|its 7. "153. Sitspenamn cnd liccacc grantcd undcr <til«<[<']<IllIFRJf tf ftt^ <fa^|, ^siRn STI^I the order passed by the Honlile ir of Yoasesh Kumar and others Vs. i. I,td. and others, reported in AXR 1990 8.C. 2216 and the ji^dgment ddlvered in the matter of C^ Albert Morris Vs. K. Chaikdrasekaran and others reported in ner in toerson and have gone throuah annexed fherewifh.. Rule 153 ofthe Petroldum. Rules. 1976 reads as under; vtnceUatmn oflicence. -Sl] 'Ewexy hcsc rulcs shall; ^iiycRl^ ^rN^T ^UII<TI<>I, -FS/59—8/20m —30.GOU. W9WSils& '^ s .-^' ...;• ^ 9*S»F'Jf "y t»l 'S'ESf ^wivft^, »-J)+f'is,R^i'yy .^^ KIHWI **<!* WI, 200 ail^T 'ws ('j'tfg^Stf) 311^1 W T't-fl'h W SV^S sbli'h TOITW^lfcTSTI^t 4 stand cancefledl. any right fo the|site (ii) fiiil stand caaceUed caacelled by th| Uovenuneat in Rule 151; be liable to be| order of fhc contraviention thereunder or sucJi Uceace, Goveriuiient if| sumcieat t if fhe no-objection certificate is District Authority or the State |accordance with sub-rule (1) of Providedthat; ISL} fb) fcl ^•ounjis .pcndji^ suspended or canceUed by an liceasuig aufhority for any lof the Act or of anv rule |of any condition contained in |or by order of the Ceutral it is satisfied that there are for doing so ; bcfore suspcnd tfais rule, the h an opportunity thc inaxtmum exceed three mdnths the suspension holdcr of thc renewal in Rule 149. (2) Notwithstandin (I), an opportunity the IioldCT of a licenci or caaceBed io. cases ^iif3rf$fift^ ^itRif ^^^ ^F>)($|< ^TsffipTsn^r if the Ucensce ceases to have &r storing petroleum; or cancdmg a Uceace under jalder of the licence shaU be gwan (»fbeing heard; Iperiod of suspauion shatl not >; aad 1 of a Ucence shatl not debar ffae Uccncc from. applying for its ac<jordance with the pr<nnsions of anytfaing contained ia sub-rule ofjbcmg hcard may not bc givcn to ;^ belbre his Ucence is suspended 3^T •''iWlv)^, Vni\WI«, ^<^W^( A^r *11*IWI *•<(<* an^r.w Ri-ii'b wa sn^t "sdtii* WI, 200 3(i^?r VRK (.>^Sy<sa) WIIW ^lfef 311^1 I'a) where fhe Ucenc aufhority as an any of the provisi of any conditions ui tns opuuon si iauninent danger is suspcaded by a licencing 4itenm ^aeasure for violation. of ifras of tfae Act or these rules, or contained ia such Ucence aad tch violation is likdv to cause ;er[to fhe.public : Provided that where licensing authorily shafl an opportunity ot beitig suspension is confirme<| fb) where the Ucenci fhe Central Ga\ considers tfaat uk interest of fhe opportumty, shoijud (3) A Ucensuig aufh< suspendmg or cancdi4 shall record its reasonsl 8. The iustant petition h^ basis of judgtaent dated 2! Additional District Judge. wherebv a decree of declaral petitioner to the effect fhat Objection Certificate for oper) plaintiff/petitioner is defendant/respondent No. ^ saiue". Prom perusal of tl) application to fhe CoUecto^ <:ni*ff<n<(li 'RFRlf ^ 1^[3^ <f^yi< '^affimOT^r Ucence is so suspended, the give fhe holdar of the Ucence heard before the order of 1; or is suspendcd or canceUed by tiniuacnt, if fhat QoverTiment the public iuterest or in the security of the State such not be givea. rity or fhe Central Govenmient a llcence unda- sub-rule (1), fbr so doiag in wrlting." ^s been filed by tlie petitioner ou the )th August 2007 passed by learned BUaspur in Civil Appeal Wo. ll-A/05 ion has been passed ia favour of the flt is declared that renewal of fhe No rting petrol pump over fhc land of fhe fU^al aud •void aud fhe has no legal right to continue the [e above judgment (Aunexure P/l), Bilaspur (Annexure P/2) as also ?Tra<^t? sNt^ yit"riri-!<, —FS/59— 8/20"- —30.GCU. 3ii^i.q>r ft-fi'ti 'tfn stK^r 'amw v' ^ 3rcT ^iWW^, BTd'y'16, fs|<41+f^<, *ll*<dl **^|cb ""•---•••"•---••---•••"--—"^ 200 sn^yr ^si^ (ipf^g^) ^iW^ifi^sn^T 6 autboritv appUcation to the respondenjt that the pedtioner has not ar| which is operatiug the pump of declaration has becn Collector, BUaspur, The of fhc petrol puiup bdng opi Ues with fhe UccnsinB aufhoa can be cancdled for the Petroleum Rules, 1976. fhe licence under the said ru| given to the holder of the Uc^; iiientioned in sub-rule 2 of Rti pleadmgs in the petition, f(i sub-rule 2 of Rule 153 do no< 9. In the niatters 6f Objection Certificate grante^ caaceUed bv fhe District aside bv tbe Division Bench fhat No Obiection Certificalti licensee ceases to havc anv ti However, the Hon'ble 8upr< Pedtion preferred by owner dft fhat froui a plain readung of clear that a No Objection Cfa ctii<t?<n<ftn tt)lifff ^ ^S^ <^i<^i< ^afRnsii^r n|t No. 2 (Anmexure P/3); it is evident rayed the Ucensee of fhe petrol puaip, Ifroui his land as a partv. The decree otitained aaainst fhe State throusto. t]|tonty coinpeteat to cancd fhe liceuce jrated froni fhe laad of fhe pedtioner. ity i.e. respondent No.2. The licence mentioned in Rule 153 ( 11 of the . before suspeading or canceltng ^cs. an opportunity of heanng is to be except undcr the circuinstances [ile 153. In fhe present case, from the ie circtuustances enumerated under exist. reaslons Ho^evier. Ucfcnce Ydigesh M4gistrate, Kumar and athers (supra) No for operatmg the petrol punip •was :, iriuch waa subsequently set >f the High Court wifh an observation :e can be canceiled onlv whai fhe •ight to use fhe slte for stormg petrol. Court disnussed the Special Leave fhe petrol puinp wifh an observation 151 ofPetroleumRules, 1976 itis rtificate granted under Rule 144 <j;an dlcte tule mw^^r ^t? g^n^r, —FS/59— 8/20m —30,Gi)u. I 1 •^ s. '¥f 's^s^S^ aii^r.^i Vw'^ WIF 3ITOI **< V- 75ST •<<1<<1<^<<, ®Tf1t1'IS,R|<?il^^< ^ *<l*1dl *KI* WI, 200 an^yr 'qaw ('y'l'i'i?') wnw^ifei 3ii^i y be caueelled whcrevcr fhe Uc' fhe site for storing petrol aa< eifher by his teriaa.cy or righ end or for auv other reason site for storing petrol ceases. Ucta.see ceases to have aay right to use fhat right could be lost by a licensee i|t to the use of fhe site conung to an tphereby, in law; fhe right to use the 10. In the matter of C. arraying fhe dealer of the respondeuts prayed for of Petroleum Rules, 1976 ou| fhe site. The objection of fhdr Lordships with a Uceace is in a position to es^ be entifled to hold or have llck hlas 11. Ia fhe instant case, paragraphs, fhe pedtioner fhc petrol pump as responde^: fhe applications subnutted bj No. 1 & 3, it is clear fhat VTSLS not made a party attempt has been xuade ^ cancelled whereas proviso t4 Rules, 1976 clearly stipulat^i fh.e licence under fhese nU^s i 1 fbe and wlfhout iii<<[ci<i1i fii<n( ^f fsIA <lai(<;l< ^aifipr sii^i [Albert Morris (supra) fhe petitioner p|etroleuiu product and his tenant as of Uceace under Rule 153 (11 fhe around that hc has lost right to dealer-respondent was negated by .n^ing that unless fhe person seeking tablish rieht to thc site, he would not llcbnce renew^ed. cancHlation tbe findin is already observed in the foregoing not arrayed the Ucerisee, owner of It. Erom perusal of thedecree as also the peti.tioner before ftie respondents Ucensee/ dealer of fhe peta-ol pump airaymgthe Ucense as party, an y fhe pedtioner to get his Ucence sub-rule 1 of Rule 153 of Petroleuni s fhat before suspending or canceling liolder of the licence shall be siyea ^iiy^ ^t? g^°n^T, —FS/59— S/Zn'T' —30.GOU. ^•^SsK^^^ :w, "'e^ ^ •^t""'^' 's^.v^.s^"' 3:5q' '^mw^, fST^wie,, Ridiyy ^ t<IN<'tl *NI*' WI, 200 an^?r 'q'ra; (lyf'i«i<l») 3II^T.^T Pt'fi'li WIt3IR^I *t< Y-\ V- ^ify<ft^ ^tNN *i;;"ii<?^, 'reiIW:HfW3II^T a an opportunity of being draftuig fhis pedtion has tri fhe petrol puiup behiad his heslrd Thus, fhe pefcitioner bv cleverly ie|l to sedk a retief agaiast fhe owncr of b^ck without arrayhig him as a party. 12. &i ffae result, for fhe being niala&de and vcxatiou^ and is accordingly; disinisse^ the C.G, ffigh Court Legal Ai(j ^foresaid reasons the iastant petition desaves to be disiuissed wifh cost with a cost of Rs.5,000/- payable to Comiiuttee, Bilaspur. Sd/- DhirendraMishra Judge (=hl1i([<?T*ft'T 'RP^if tf l^et ^t^1< ^sifipTsn^T -FS/59—S/7W —30.CUU.