Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 397 (DEL)

PRATAP OIL COMPANY v. STALE (NCT OF DELHI)

2000-05-04

MANMOHAN SARIN

body2000
Manmohan Sarin, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioneris aggrieved by the cancellation of the "no objection Certificate"issued to it on 15. 4. 1998under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules 1976. The Deputycommissioner of Police (licensing) had cancelled the "no Objection Certificalc", following registration of an FIR under Section 407 Indian Penal Code read with Sections 7, 10 and 55 ofessential Commodities Act against the petitioner. ( 2 ) THE case against the petitioner was that in contravention of the Petroleumrules, two tankers having bitumen and furnace oil, of different consignees, were unloaded at the petitioner s site unauthorizedly. One of the tankers was for goods consigned to M/s. M. C. Construction, Gohana in Haryana while the other tanker was formcd, Timar Pur. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has urged before me that cancellation of thelicence i. e. of "no Objection Certificate", was totally on extraneous grounds as therehas been no violation of any of the terms and conditions on which the licence wasgranted. Learned counsel relies on the observation made by the learned single judgeof this Court while granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner s proprietor that nocomplaint had been lodged by either the 10c or MCD. Learned counsel further submits that no action could have been taken till the criminal case was Finally decided. Learned counsel submits that it would cause grave hardship and prejudice to thepetitioner if the petitioner was to he Finally acquilted in the criminal trial, while thelicence is cancelled now. The submissions though appear attractive in the first flusharc devoid of merit. Taking action for breach of any of the terms of the Petroleumrules or the terms and conditions of the "no Objection Certificate", cannot licdeferred to awail the Final conviction or acquittal in the criminal prosecution. In theinstant case. the factum of the unauthorised unloading of the two tankers containingfurnace oil and bitumen is not in dispute. For the tanker containing Bitumen, petitioner s explanation is that two anti socialelements, for business rivalry, had brought the tanker containing bitumen meant formcd forcibly at the site and called the police, thereby falsely implicating thepetitioner for offloading the tanker. It is pertinent to note that petitioner did not lodgeany complaint for trespass with the police authorities. The explanation is not credibleand does not inspire any confidence. It is pertinent to note that petitioner did not lodgeany complaint for trespass with the police authorities. The explanation is not credibleand does not inspire any confidence. As for the second tanker, the explanation offeredwas that I he tanker containing furnace oil was unloaded temporarily on the instructions of M/s. Pooja Roadlines as the consignee was not having storage facilities. Thelicencing Authority cannot be faulted with for not accepting these explanations. There is also no merit in the contention that there has been no violation of any of theterms of the "no Objection Certificate". Strict adherence to the Petroleum Rules andits compliance cannot be underscored having regard to the nature of the products required to be secured, their safety and prevetion of any adulteration or misuse thereof. Rule 151 in terms itself provides that the cancellation of No Objection Certificate"could he done if the Stale Government District Authority is satisfied that the licenseehas ceased to have, the right to store petroleum. This cannot be given a narrow meaning, and confining it to a licensee ceasing to have the right to use the site on account ofeither the expiry of the lease or licence of the premises. A harmonious interpretationof this Rule would be that the licensee, if he violates the terms and conditions of thepelroleum Rules or violates any statutory provision governing the storage ofpetroleum products, the licensee shall be deemed to have ceased to have the right touse site for storing petroleum. This interpretation would be in consonance and inkeeping with the objects of the Pelroleum Rules. On a perusal of the order of thedcp. Licencing and the appellate order, I do not Find any infirmity or ground, whichcalls lor interfernce in the exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of theconstitution of India. The petition has no merit and is dismissed.