CHARAN DASS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 06.09.2011 (Annexure P-11) passed by respondent No.4, thereby denying 'No Objection Certificate' required to enable the petitioner to commission his retail outlet, for which letter of intent had already been issued in his favour by the competent authority of respondent No.2.

(2.) Facts of case are hardly in dispute. After having been found eligible and meritorious, petitioner was placed at Sr. No.1 of the merit list finalised by the competent authority of Indian Oil Corporation for granting the distributorship of retail outlet on Assandh Road, Panipat. Letter of intent was issued in favour of the petitioner. Petitioner started completing all other necessary formalities so as to enable him to commission the retail outlet. Different departments issued the requisite 'No Objection Certificates' in favour of the petitioner including the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Panipat vide Annexure P-2, Regional Officer Panipat, Haryana State Pollution Control Board vide Annexure P-3, District Town Planner, Panipat vide Annexure P-4, Improvement Trust, Panipat vide Annexure P-5 and Superintendent of Police, Panipat vide Annexure P-7. When in spite of above said 'No Objection Certificates' having been issued by the different departments, District Magistrate denied issuance of 'No Objection Certificate' to the petitioner, he approached this Court by way of Civil Writ Petition No. 6239 of 2010 which came to be allowed by this Court vide order dated 21.07.2011 (Annexure P-10). However, it was thought appropriate by this Court to direct the District Magistrate to reconsider the issue of 'No Objection Certificate' instead of issuing direction to him to grant the 'No Objection Certificate' in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) In compliance of the order dated 21.07.2011 (Anneuxre P-10) passed by this Court, respondent No.4 passed the impugned order dated 06.09.2011 (Annexure P-11) thereby again compelling the petitioner to approach this Court. Hence this writ petition. Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto respondents have filed their respective written statements. Petitioner filed his replication to the written statement filed by respondent No.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.4 has proceeded on wholly misconceived and perverse approach while passing the impugned order. He further submits that petitioner was fulfilling all the requirements, including the requirement of distance because the site in question falls under clause 1, that is undivided carriage way (for both sides of carriage way), for which the distance was up to 100 meters. However, respondent No.4, only with a view to deny the genuine claim of the petitioner, proceeded on an arbitrary approach while passing the impugned order. Finally, he prays for setting aside the impugned order by allowing the writ petition.