V JAYARAJ BY POWER OF ATTORNEY, V CHANDRASEKARAN Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the order of the second respondent dated 24.4.1989, which was passed pursuant to the order of the first respondent dated 17.4.1989, cancelling the licence.

(2.) The petitioner claims to be the power agent of one Jayaraj. This petition is filed with an affidavit sworn to by one Chandrasekaran as power of attorney.

(3.) The aforesaid Jayaraj was a successful applicant for operating a retail outlet of the second respondent corporation in Perianegamam Village. S. No. 273/4 of Perianegamam village was chosen by the petitioner and he entered into a lease with the owner of the site by a registered lease deed for a period of 15 years. The first respondent granted no objection certificate to the second respondent corporation stating that he has no objection to the second respondent Corporation receiving the licence. On receipt of the said certificate a licence was granted to the petitioner for storing petroleum in tank in connection with pump outfit for fueling motor conveyances. The complaint made in the affidavit is that the petitioner has been operating the retail outlet from January, 1986 without any hindrance, while so the first respondent, after more than 3 years of operation, has arbitrarily cancelled the no objection certificate. A reference to Petroleum Act, 1934 and to Petroleum Rules, 1976 has been made in the affidavit. It is alleged in the affidavit that under Rule 141 of the Petroleum Rules no objection certificate is granted and under Rule 151 of the Petroleum Rules, the cancellation was made. It is stated in the affidavit that cancellation of the no objection certificate can be made on the sole ground that the licensee has ceased to have any right to use the site for storing petroleum. It is stated in the affidavit that the petitioner has been granted lease of the premises for a period of 15 years with effect from 10th October, 1985 and that the lease has been by a registered document, which is still in force. It is stated that the first respondent has arbitrarily cancelled the no objection certificate. It is alleged that the First respondent has no power to cancel the no objection certificate on the sole ground that the licencce has ceased to have any right to use the site for storing petroleum. It is stated that the first respondent has not given any reason for cancelling the no objection certificate which is violative of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 151 of the Petroleum Rules and that the first respondent has also not given any opportunity before cancelling the no objection certificate to the petitioner and the second respondent, which is violative of Rule 151 of the Petroleum Rules. It is stated in the affidavit that the site occupied by the petitioner belongs to a former Member of the Legislative Assembly and an influential politician belonging to the opposition and several illegal actions have been initiated against the said person by the ruling party and that the impugned action is a part of the same. It is further stated that the petitioner has incurred expenditure to create the infrastructure and that the respondents, after allowing the petitioner to alter his position, are bound by the principle of promissory estoppel. It is also stated that there is no other pump in the vicinity and the nearest outlet is at Pollachi nearly 18 Kms. away and that the respondents by their arbitrary action have illegally deprived the petitioner of his livelihood.