SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR; JOINT CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES; S SANKAR RAMAN; LALITHA SETHURAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the second and third respondents dated 06.02.2015 and 13.02.2015 respectively.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. In the year 1959, the petitioner corporation has taken over the vacant site on lease from M/s.Kasi and Sethu, which is a family concern for taking care of the family business and estate of the respondents 6 and 7. Subsequently, in the year 2004, by virtue of a partition deed, the properties were divided and the demised property was allotted to the respondents 6 and 7. However, on renewal of lease, till date, the petitioner corporation has been in continuous possession and as per the original arrangement subsequent to the renewal of lease agreement dated 30.03.2000, the petitioner corporation has been depositing the rents to the credit of the respondents 6 and 7 in their account in City Union Bank, Kumbakonam Branch. As per the dealership agreement dated 13.04.2005, the outlet is being operated by the dealer M/s.Sivaraman & Co., Kumbakonam. The explosives licence stands in the name of the petitioner corporation and is valid upto 31.12.2015 which is renewable as per the policy conditions. In the meanwhile, even prior to the expiry of the lease period, the respondents 6 and 7 have filed a vexatious suit in O.S.No.44 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Kumbakonam, for recovery of vacant possession and recovery of past and future rent. In the said suit, the seventh respondent is the second plaintiff who was examined in chief about nine months back and she is purposely avoiding to be cross- examined and thus, the said suit is still pending.

(3.) It is the further case of the petitioner that on a petition filed by the sixth and seventh respondents, the Sub Collector, Kumbakonam, had sent a notice dated 02.09.2014 to the dealer for enquiry on 04.09.2014. The said notice was challenged by the dealer by filing W.P.No.14912 of 2014 before this Court on the ground that the Sub Collector, Kumbakonam, has no jurisdiction or authority to issue the notice. After hearing all the parties concerned, this Court had quashed the said notice dated 09.12.2014. In the meanwhile, the sixth and seventh respondents have submitted an application on 25.06.2014 before the second respondent to cancel the No Objection Certificate issued by the authorities to run the outlet and the same was forwarded to the third respondent. The second respondent had issued a show cause notice dated 09.01.2015 to the petitioner corporation and the petitioner corporation had also submitted their reply and objection on 20.01.2015. Since the respondents 6 and 7 have already set the law in motion by filing a suit in O.S.No.44 of 2011, the attempts made by them to evict the petitioner corporation and its dealer is liable to be prevented. Further, the dealership agreement and the explosive licence are still valid and is in force. In spite of receipt of objections of the petitioner dated 20.01.2015, without even affording an opportunity of personal hearing, the respondents 1 and 2 have cancelled the No Objection Certificate granted to the petitioner corporation and had informed the third respondent to cancel the explosives licence and thereby they have violated the principles of natural justice and the Explosives Rules, 2002 particularly Rule 150(1) of the Petroleum Rules, 2002. Further, the third respondent, even without giving any opportunity of hearing, cancelled the licence vide order dated 13.02.2015 and thereby violated the provisions to Rule 152(III)(a) of Petroleum Rules, 2002. Challenging the said proceedings dated 06.02.2015 and 13.02.2015, the petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition.