ASMABEN M SAVAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Learned AGP waives service of RULE. The petition was taken up for final disposal by consent of learned counsel.

(2.) THE petitioner has received Letter of Intent dated 16th November 2010 from Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited for proposed retail outlet dealership on Gondal-Moviya Road, within Gondal Municipality limits (District-Rajkot), under open category advertised on 30th June 2010. Pursuant to that the petitioner is stated to have made an application dated 16.11.2010 in Form-IX for the grant of licence in terms of Rule 143 of the Petroleum Rules 2002 (for short ?the Rules?); and the HPCL had, in turn, sought No Objection Certificate of the district authority in terms of Rule 144 of the Rules. That application for No Objection Certificate has been rejected by Additional District Magistrate, Rajkot, on 4.1.2011 and that rejection is challenged before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) AS repeatedly held, and recently observed by the Apex Court in M.P.State Agro Industries Development Corporation and Another v. Jahan Khan [AIR 2007 SC 3153], the High Court may not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy but that rule is not of universal application. It is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. In an appropriate case, inspite of availability of an alternative remedy, a writ Court may still exercise its discretionary jurisdiction of judicial review in at least three contingencies where enforcement of fundamental right is involved or there is failure of principles of natural justice or the impugned order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction. In the facts of the present case, while the petition was entertained by issuance of Notice at the initial stage, by now the period of limitation for preferring an appeal has passed, and hence, rejection of the petition on the ground of alternative remedy would render the petitioner totally helpless and without any remedy inspite of violation of Article 14 in the impugned communication. It was seen that the guidelines of the Government itself practically directed the authorities to ignore the N.A. status of the land in question in the matter of issuing No Objection Certificates under Rule 144, as also the practice of issuing No Objection Certificate on condition of getting permission from the competent authority to use the land for commercial purpose, were not followed by the authority and extraneous consideration of disputes and litigations about other parcel of land were pressed into service for denying NOC to the petitioner. The other ground of title of the land being not clear was not only ex-facie vague but it could not be substantiated by any material on record.