BHUPINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who had the benefit of allotment of a petrol pump after securing all statutory clearances and whose petrol pump had been commissioned after issuance of letter of intent, faced an obstacle by the District Magistrate, cancelling the 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC)already issued. This change in the stand had arisen when two persons, who were arrayed as respondents 4 and 5, filed a writ petition in CWP No. 18655 of 2004, challenging the allotment made in favor of the petitioner, contending that the location of the petrol pump was a place different from what was advertised by the Oil Company. This allotment was exclusively for Scheduled Caste candidate and the 4th respondent also belonged to the Scheduled Caste category, but incidentally he had not even applied. The 5th respondent belonged to the General category and it is not very clear what his locus standi was. When the above writ petition filed at their instance was pending, the District Magistrate was reported to have taken a fresh appraisal on the location of the property with reference to the revenue records and cancelled the NOC already granted on the grounds essentially that the location of the petrol pump was at the village that had not been notified and that further the width of the road on which the petrol pump was located, was less than 5 karams, which was the minimum approved width as per the guidelines issued by the Corporation. After the filing of the writ petition, having regard to the cancellation of the NOC already issued, instead of directing the petrol pump to be closed, the Division Bench of this Court before which this case had been brought up, passed an order on 09.07.2007, permitting the Corporation to run the outlet in question, until further orders. This order was extended from time to time. By order dated 13.05.2008, the Division Bench had clarified that the Corporation could not entrust the running of the outlet to anyone including the petitioner.

(2.) THE contention of the petitioner is that the cancellation of the NOC as enjoined by the relevant Rules was restrictive and the several reasons set forth in the order of the District Magistrate which is impugned traversed outside the relevant factors for consideration. The first contention, therefore, was that the power of cancellation could not be exercised for reasons which would have been perhaps relevant at the time when the NOC was issued for the first time. If there was no fraud or suppression made at any time, a cancellation cannot be undertaken at the whims of the District Magistrate. The second contention is that, even the alleged grounds for cancellation as found in the order, cannot be supported.

(3.) THE counsel for the State would, however, contend that, previously the reports had been given by the Naib Tehsildar in active connivance of the petitioner and he was being charge -sheeted and departmental action was being taken for false information. All the applications and field maps had been given only for a location of the property at Salempur and approval for location at Kalewal could not have been, therefore, granted. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contest this stand of the State by pointing out to the statement filed on behalf of the State in the writ petition filed in CWP No. 18655 of 2004. It was worthwhile to reproduce what the contention in defence by the State was: -