LAWS(ALL)-1989-11-76

M/S. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER Vs. THE DY. CHIEF CONTROLLER EXPLOSIVES AND OTHERS

Decided On November 30, 1989
M/S. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited And Another Appellant
V/S
Dy. Chief Controller Explosives Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Briefly stated, in so far as relevant for the decision of the present case, are petitioner No. 1 is a Government of India undertaking registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1923, and petitioner No. 2 is a sole proprietorship concern. The petrol pump situate at 1, Tilak Road, Near Bindal Bridge, Dehradun belonged to petitioner No. 1 which was set up in the year 1939. The property under the tenancy of petitioner No. 1 in which the petrol pump in question is situated was originally owned by one Prem Harihar Lal who executed a lease deed in favour of petitioner No. 1. The said deed was renewed from time to time and the last renewal was made on 16.6.1982 which was for a period of ten years meaning thereby the lease in favour of petitioner for the land in which the petrol pump in question is situate is to expire on 16.6.1982. Some time in the year 1986 Prem Harihar Lal sold his property including the property in question to one Dinesh Kumar Jain and others. After the property was purchased by Dinesh Kumar Jain and others in 1986, who had full knowledge about the location of the petrol pump, they started threatening and creating hindrances in the smooth running of the petrol pump of the petitioner and made several representations to the authorities alleging therein that the pump in question had been installed against the petroleum rules and conditions and is also dangerous to the life and property of the residents of the locality. Subsequently Dinesh Kumar Jain filed writ petition No. 24165 of 1987 in this Court in which it was prayed that the Court may be pleased to direct the Licensing Authorities not to renew the licence of the petitioner No. 1 and further to direct the petitioner to shift the petrol pump to some other suitable place. The said writ petition came up for admission before a Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble K.C. Agarwal, J. and Hon'ble R.K. Gulati, J. on 23.12.1987. The Division Bench after hearing counsel for the petitioner dismissed the petition in limine on the ground that there was no merit in the petition. After the dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition the District Magistrate, Dehradun, respondent No. 3, issued a notice to the petitioner No. 1 to show cause why 'no objection certificate' granted to petitioner No. 1 earlier should not be withdrawn. The petitioners filed a reply contending therein that respondent No. 1 had no Jurisdiction to withdraw the 'no objection certificate' under the relevant provisions of the petroleum Act and the rules framed thereunder. However, respondent No. 3 by order dated 12.8.1988 withdraw the objection certificate which was approved by order dated 6.9.1989. The petitioners being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of respondent No. 3 filed an appeal before the appellate authority, namely, the Commissioner, Garhwal Region, respondent No. 2. The appeal filed by petitioner No. 1 was admitted and the operation of the orders dated August 12, and September 6, 1988 passed by respondent No. 3 were stayed on 26.9.1988. The matter was again adjourned to 5.12.1988 and the stay was also continued till the date. However, on 27.10.1988, which was not the date fixed in the case, without the knowledge of the petitioner respondent No. 3 modified his order dated 26.9.1988. It appears that an information regarding the withdrawal of 'no objection certificate' was sent to the Licensing Authority, Agra (Deputy Chief controller, Explosives, Agra) respondent No. 1 for taking necessary action against petitioner No. 1. On receipt of the said information the Licensing Authority issued a notice to petitioner No. 1 to show cause as to why the Licence should not be cancelled in view of the fact that his 'no objection certificate' had been withdrawn by the District Authorities - On receipt of the said notice petitioner No -1 informed respondent No. 1 that the operation of the order of withdrawal of 'no objection certificate' has been stayed by respondent No. 2 and consequently the said licence could not be cancelled. Inspite of the fact that the petitioner No. 1 holds the licence for running of the said pump and in the teeth of the stay order granted by respondent No. 2, the respondents made a noting on 18.9.1981 to the effect that "the registration certificate of petitioner No. 5 should be cancelled; that no objection certificate be withdrawn, and that necessary orders be passed to enable the concerned Excise officer to order the concerned Inspector for sealing the petrol pump of the petitioners". It has been averred by the petitioners that the aforesaid noting was not communicated to the petitioners. On 18.11.1988 an Inspector representing the respondents visited the site of the pump and made enquiries from the representative of petitioner No. 2. A certified copy of the stay order was shown to him. Inspite of the fact that the stay order was shown to the Inspector the pump was sealed by him.

(2.) AGGRIEVED against the order dated 27.10.1988 passed by respondent No. 3 and also the action of the authorities in pursuance of the orders dated September 18 and 27 and November 15 and 19, 1988 the petitioners preferred a writ petition in this Court on 28.1.1988 and the Bench consisting of Hon'ble R.M. Sahai, J. and Hon'ble K.K. Birla, J. admitted the writ petition and passed the following stay order: - -

(3.) THE petitioners being aggrieved against the aforesaid order dated 25.1.1989 have approached this Court in the present writ petition. It may be mentioned here that after the passing of the order dated 25.1.1989 respondent No. 1 has also issued a show cause notice to petitioner No. 1 as to why his licence should not be cancelled as consequences of the order dated 25.1.1990 of respondent No. 2.