JUDGMENT A. N. Varma, J. 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 4-11-1977 passed by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad stating that no orders can be passed on the petitioner's application for registration under the U. P. Sales of Motor Spirit and Diesel Oil Taxation Act, 1939 as there is a dispute pending in regard to the allotment of site to the petitioner for running the Petrol pump. 2. Shortly stated the relevant facts are that upon an application of the petitioner he was allotted a dealer-ship, for running a petrol service station, by tie Indian Oil Corporation. A 'no objection' certificate was issued by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad on 9-5-1977. Thereafter on 25-10-1977 the Controller of Explosive granted licence to the petitioner for storage of petroleum in tank or tanks. Armed with these licences the petitioner installed the petrol pump at the site in question. Thereafter he made an application for being registered under Section 5 of the U. P. Sales of Motor Spirit and Diesel Oil Taxation Act. That application has been disposed of by the District Magistrate by the impugned order dated 4-11-1977. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition and has prayed for a direction to the District Magistrate to grant him the requisite registration certification. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent disputing the claim of the petitioner. In the counter-affidavit the ground stated in the impugned order has been reiterated as the reason for not granting registration to the petitioner. An additional ground has also been pleaded in the counter-affidavit, namely, that the petitioner has not got the plan of the service station sanctioned by the Municipal Board. This assertion has, however, been emphatically denied in the rejoinder affidavit in paragraph 9 of which the petitioner asserts that the plan submitted by the petitioner had been duly sanctioned by the President of the Municipal Board. Annexure 3 to the rejoinder affidavit is the copy of that order. We are, therefore, left only with the grounds stated in the impugned order. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel, we find that the stand taken by the respondent for not granting registration certificate to the petitioner is on the face of it unsustainable in law. We are, therefore, left only with the grounds stated in the impugned order. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel, we find that the stand taken by the respondent for not granting registration certificate to the petitioner is on the face of it unsustainable in law. Rule 6 of the U. P. Sales or Purchase of Motor Spirit, Diesel Oil and Alcohol Taxation Rules 1977 framed under the aforesaid Act provides : "Refusal of Registration Certificate (Section 5(1)): A registering authority, refusing to grant or amend a registration certificate, shall record his reasons for such refusal which may be based on the consideration that- (i) the previous registration certificate of the applicant has been suspended or cancelled and the order of such suspension or cancellation is in force, or (ii) the applicant does not hold a valid licence for the storage of motor spirit as required under the Petroleum Act 1934." It will be seen from a bare glance at this provision that the registering authority can refuse to grant a registration certificate on the two grounds mentioned in the Rule. It is not the case of the respondent that any previous registration certificate of the petitioner had been suspended or cancelled. Indeed it is not even averred in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner held any previous registration certificate. The respondent also do not assert that the petitioner does not hold a valid licence for the storage of Motor Spirit as required in Petroleum Act 1934. Annexure 7 to the petition is a copy of the licence issued to the petitioner through the Controller Explosives on 25-10-1977. It is thus apparent that neither of the two grounds on which the petitioner's application for registration could be rejected was present in this case so as to justify refusal to grant registration certificate applied for by the petitioner. 5. While we are on this point, we may mention that the Supreme Court had occasion to consider parallel provisions appearing in Madras Sales of Motor Spirit Taxation (Andhra Pradesh Extension and Amendment) Act in the case of M. A. Rahman v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1961 Supreme Court 1471. 5. While we are on this point, we may mention that the Supreme Court had occasion to consider parallel provisions appearing in Madras Sales of Motor Spirit Taxation (Andhra Pradesh Extension and Amendment) Act in the case of M. A. Rahman v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1961 Supreme Court 1471. Their Lordships ruled that the provision for registration of dealers is intended primarily for the levy and collection of tax for the purposes of the State and that the provisions are not intended to operate as a registration oh carrying on business in Motor Spirit. The purpose behind registration, the Supreme Court stressed, is that those on whom the liability to pay tax lies are known to the State so that it may realise the tax. 6. It is in the background of this legislative intent that one has to examine the question whether the failure of the respondent to grant the registration certificate to the petitioner was legally justified. For the same reason any objection not related to the provisions laid down in Rule 6 or the basic object of the aforesaid Act must be wholly excluded in considering whether the certificate applied for should be granted or not. Judged from this angle, it is apparent that the fact that there was some dispute as regards allotment of the site upon which the pump has been installed could not furnish a valid ground for refusing to grant the certificate to the petitioner; less so, when none of the disabling conditions mentioned in Rule 6 was admittedly present in the case. 7. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 4-11-1977 (Annexure 6 to the petition) is quashed. The Collector/ District Magistrate is directed to grant requisite certificate to the petitioner in accordance with law within one month of the date on which a copy of this order is submitted before him. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.