YOGESH KUMAR GULATI Vs. SATYA PRAKASH DHINGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 10.5.2010, Annexure P12, passed by the Commissioner, Jabalpur Division (Respondent No. 2) on the ground that appeal is not maintainable under Rule 154(2) of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 (in short, "the Rules").

(2.) The Petitioner is a proprietorship firm having a petrol and diesel retail outlet of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited at village Raipura, District Jabalpur. The retail outlet has been established on the land bearing Khasra No. 167/2, area 22,400 sq.ft., of which Respondent No. 1 is the owner. By a lease deed, Annexure P4, the land had been given on lease by Respondent No. to the Petitioner for 15 years commencing from 1.10.1993 to 30.9.2008 for setting up and running the petrol/diesel retail outlet. Condition No. 5 of the lease deed provides that the Petitioner shall have option to renew the lease for a further period of six years on the same terms and conditions after the expiry of the term of lease. The petrol and diesel pump was set up by the Petitioner after obtaining no-objection certificate dated 29.10.1993, Annexure P2, under the Rules from the District Magistrate, Jabalpur. On completion of the term of lease, the Petitioner opted for its renewal for a further period of six years and sent a communication to Respondent No. 1 in this regard. But Respondent No. 1 declined to extend the term of lease. The Petitioner has, therefore, filed a Civil Suit No. 13-A/2009 (new) in the Civil Court, Jabalpur, for execution of lease deed. Respondent No. 1 in retaliation made a complaint, Annexure P6, to the District Magistrate, Jabalpur, for cancelling the no-objection certificate dated 29.10.1993 granted to Petitioner inter-alia on the ground that it has ceased to have any right to use the land after the expiry of lease period. The District Magistrate, after hearing Respondent No. 1 and the Petitioner by order dated 7.12.2009, Annexure P10, dismissed the complaint by holding that there was no good ground for cancelling the no-objection certificate. Aggrieved, Respondent No. 1 has filed an appeal under Rule 154(2) of the Rules before the Commissioner (Respondent No. 2). The Petitioner raised a preliminary objection against the maintainability of appeal which the Commissioner has dismissed by the impugned order dated 10.5.2010, Annexure P12. It is in this background the Petitioner has filed the present petition.

(3.) The learned Counsel for Petitioner has argued that Rule 154(2) of the Rules does not provide for any appeal against an order dismissing the complaint for cancellation of no-objection certificate. The learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1, in reply, argued that the appeal is maintainable.