N.A.K. GOPALAKRISHNA RAJA Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed by the owner of the land in Survey No.533 in Theni Allinagaram. He has let out the vacant site to the third respondent for lease and the lease period was over as early as on 15.03.1992. According to the petitioner, even thereafter, the third respondent has not vacated the premises but he is doing business, illegally by getting No Objection Certificate from the second respondent for issuance of licence. Only on the basis of the No Objection Certificate issued by the second respondent, without any valid right he has been continuing his business. According to him, it is illegal. The authority should not have issued No Objection Certificate for grant of licence, as there is no valid lease at all. The possession of the third respondent in the property is illegal which can be termed as only trespasser. When there is no valid agreement, the authority could not have satisfied himself to the legal right of the petitioner to continue in the property so as to run the business. Therefore, the authority granting No Objection Certificate and the consequential licence are baseless. In fact, earlier he has filed a Writ Petition for eviction and that was withdrawn and subsequently he has also filed a suit wherein the respondent claimed city tenant's protection right. Now, the contention of the petitioner is not to evict the third respondent but he cannot run the petroleum business especially without the owner's consent. In this connection, he would also point out that after the representation made by him when that was not considered earlier he had filed a writ petition for mandamus seeking direction to the first and second respondent to cancel the license given by them to the fifth respondent/third respondent herein and also a direction to the third respondent to revoke the No Objection Certificate given by him to the third respondent herein and this Honourable Court by order dated 27.02.2014 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders after giving opportunity to both parties. Thereafter, both parties have appeared before the respondent concerned and thereafter, the present order was passed cancelling the No Objection Certificate and consequential licence.

(2.) The grievance in the writ petition is that now the order has been passed by the District Revenue Officer but they have presented the appeal before the District Collector and the District Collector in turn entertained the appeal and issue summons calling upon them to appear. It is the contention as per the provisions of the Act, namely, the Petroleum Act and the Petroleum Rules, 2002, the higher authority means not the District Collector but only the Government. They specifically plead that as per the petroleum Rules, Rule 2 (x) the District Authority means:

(3.) Whereas, contra, the respondent counsel mainly would point out that after all this is only a notice even for jurisdiction purpose, he can challenge the same before the authority concerned. Secondly, District Revenue Officer is definitely subordinate to the District Collector. Therefore, any order passed by District Revenue Officer would definitely go before the next ranking official in the department namely the District Collector and rightly the District Collector has entertained the appeal and issued only a summon. Rule 154(1) (iii) only would help the respondent which contemplate that the authority is vested with the District Collector. Under those circumstances, he would contend that the writ petition is devoid of merits and it has been filed only to harass the third respondent.