ESSAR OIL LTD Vs. BINU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides. This appeal is filed by the fourth respondent in the W.P.(C)No.31914/17 which was filed by the first respondent herein. The writ petition was filed for a declaration that Ext.R4(c), no objection certificate, and the building permit issued by respondents 3 and 4 are illegal and unsustainable. A further prayer for directing respondents 2 to 4 to consider and pass orders on Exts.P1 to P3 was also sought for. By the judgment under appeal, the learned Single Judge set aside Ext.R4(c), the no objection certificate and directed the District Collector to reconsider the matter. It is this judgment, which is under challenge before us.

(2.) Heard the counsel for the appellant, respective counsel appearing for respondents 1, 4 and 5 and the Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 and 3.

(3.) Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and also on going through the pleadings, we find that the challenge against Ext.R4(c), the no objection certificate issued by the Additional District Magistrate, was on the basis that the same was in violation of Rule 131 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002. It was accepting this plea that the learned Single Judge has set aside the same in the judgment under appeal. However, we find that the very case of the first respondent and the basis on which the learned single Judge has proceeded are incorrect for the reason that Ext.R4(c) was issued in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 and the considerations thereof are also totally different as compared with Rule 131. This fundamental mistakes committed by the parties, which lead to its acceptance renders the judgment itself vitiated. In such circumstances, we are inclined to set aside the judgment under appeal and we do so.