VINOD SERVICE STATION Vs. ACP, LICENSING AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM Nos. 15401 -15402/2013 (Exemptions)

(2.) THE petitioner before this Court is challenging the order dated 10.10.2013, passed by respondent No. 1, Additional Commissioner of Police (Licensing) whereby he in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Rule 150 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 confirmed the show cause notice issued to BPCL and cancelled the NOC issued to the Chief Controller of Explosives on 22.12.2004 for obtaining the petroleum license to run the existing retail outlet at Village Nangal Dewat, Khasra No. 1286, Opposite Centaur Hotel, IGI Airport, New Delhi with immediate effect; and the communication dated 31.10.2013 issued to BPCL referring to the order of the Additional Commissioner of Police (Licensing) dated 10.10.2013 and informing it that pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Additional Commissioner of Police (Licensing), the licence issued to BPCL stands cancelled in terms of Rule 152(1)(ii) of the Petroleum Rules, 2002. As a result of the aforesaid orders, the petitioner, which has been running the aforesaid petrol pump on the land which was licensed to BPCL by the Airports Authority of India, respondent No. 3, is unable to run the said petrol pump any more. Admittedly, WP (C) No. 6930/2013 was filed by BPCL challenging (i) the eviction order passed by the Eviction Officer of the Airports Authority of India under the provisions of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 in respect of the site of the above -referred petrol pump; and (ii) the order of the Additional Commissioner of Police (Licensing) dated 10.10.2013. Admittedly, the petitioner before this Court was respondent No. 7 in the aforesaid writ petition. The said writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 1.11.2013 with a direction to the appellate tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioner therein for condonation of delay in filing the appeal as expeditiously as possible and also dispose of the appeal itself within a period of eight (8) weeks. In the meanwhile status quo was directed with regard to possession of the above -referred petrol pump site. It would, thus, be seen that despite the BPCL having challenged the order dated 10.10.2013 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Police (Licensing) and having sought a writ of certiorari quashing the said order dated 10.10.2013 and also having sought directions to the Chief Controller of Explosives not to take any action pursuant to the said order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Police, the Court in its wisdom, neither quashed the order dated 10.10.2013 nor did it issue any direction to any of the respondents in the writ petition with respect to the implementation of the said order. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the Airports Authority of India that the aforesaid order dated 1.11.2013 was a consent order having been passed in the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner. This is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It would, thus, be seen that despite the aforesaid order dated 1.11.2013 having been passed in the presence of the petitioner, either no request was made by the said respondent for quashing the order dated 10.10.2013 or at least staying its implementation or such a request was made but was not granted by the Court. Either way, what is important is that the petitioner before this Court accepted the order dated 1.11.2013 which contained no direction with respect to the order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Police (Licensing) cancelling the NOC granted to the BPCL in respect of the petrol pump in question.

(3.) AS regards the communication dated 31.10.2013, the said communication is only a culmination of the order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Police (Licensing) on 10.10.2013 since in the absence of a no objection from the Petroleum and Explosive Safety Organisation, BPCL or for that matter even the petitioner cannot run a petrol pump at the site in question.