JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner is before this Court challenging issuance of, 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) by the office of the Collector and District Magistrate, Sabarkantha dated 07.08.2009, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-A, page No.11 to this petition. 2. When the matter was under consideration, Ms.Manisha Narsinghani, learned Assistant Government Pleader, pointed out that document produced at Annexure-D, page No.18 dated 18.07.2009 is forged inasmuch as, the signatory of that document, viz. President, GIDC, Modasa has disowned his signature on the said document and therefore, it was deemed fit to inquire from the learned advocate for the petitioner as to from where has be come in possession of the said document. Learned advocate for the petitioner was granted time. 3. Today, learned advocate for the petitioner has produced a bunch of papers along with a receipt of payment of charges for obtaining the copies of the documents applied for under the Right to Information Act. The bunch documents is taken on record. 3.1 It is the case of the petitioner that he obtained the aforesaid documents from the applicant therein, viz. one Shri Hotha Kalicharan Babubhai. The receipt is dated 18.08.2009 and the document in question is at page No.45 of that bunch. This prima facie absolves the petitioner from the charge of he having concocted or forged the document in question. Still however, when the matter has come to the notice of the Court, the Court feels that it is the bounden duty of the Court to order inquiry in the matter. The Collector and District Magistrate, Sabarkatha is directed to hold an inquiry in the matter and if found necessary, necessary proceedings, including that of criminal proceedings, be initiated against the concerned person. The action taken be reported to the Court. 4. So far as merits of the matter are concerned, learned advocate for the petitioner could convince the Court that 'NOC' dated 07.08.2009 is issued by the office of the Collector and District Magistrate, Sabarkantha without applying its mind to the relevant provisions of law and therefore, the matter requires consideration. At the request of the learned advocate for the petitioner and with the consent of the learned advocates for the respondents, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 5. At the request of the learned advocate for the petitioner and with the consent of the learned advocates for the respondents, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 5. Learned advocate for the petitioner invited attention of the Court to Rule 47 of the Gas Cylinders Rules, 2004 (“the Rules”, for short), which provides for, “prior approval of specifications and plans of premises proposed to be licensed”. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 47 reads as under:- “(1) Every person desiring to obtain a license to fill and store any compressed gas in any cylinder shall submit to the Chief Controller or Controller authorized by Chief Controller-” (emphasis supplied). As respondent No.2 is to store 12000 kg. of compressed gas in cylinders, he ought to have applied for, 'the grant of approval of specifications and plans of premises', which he intended to get licensed under Rule 47. 6. Learned advocate for the petitioner also invited attention of the Court to the fact that so far as 'NOC' is concerned, there is a provision for grant of 'NOC' in Rule 48, which pertains to, “No objection Certificate”. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 48 reads as under:- “(1) An applicant for a new license in Form G, for a CNG dispensing station shall apply to the District Magistrate with two copies of site plan showing the location of the premises proposed to be licensed under these rules .............” (emphasis supplied). Thus, prima facie, 'NOC' issued by the office of the Collector and District Magistrate, Sabarkantha is without any application of mind to the relevant provisions. 7. Learned advocate for respondent No.2 invited attention of the Court to the fact that respondent No.2 had made an application on 08.06.2009, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-R5, page No.49. He submitted that the said application was not made under Rule 48 of the Rules and therefore, 'NOC' issued by the office of the Collector and District Magistrate, Sabarkantha should be treated to have been granted as required under Rule 47. The submission cannot be accepted for the simple reason that storing any compressed gas in any cylinder is the subject matter of Rule 47, whereas Rule 48 provides for 'obtaining 'NOC' qua CNG dispensing station'. 8. The submission cannot be accepted for the simple reason that storing any compressed gas in any cylinder is the subject matter of Rule 47, whereas Rule 48 provides for 'obtaining 'NOC' qua CNG dispensing station'. 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that issuance of 'NOC' may be treated to be of no consequence and may not be found fault with, as the same is issued on the basis of the application filed by respondent No.2 dated 08.06.2009 (Annexure-R5, page No.49). The aforesaid submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader can also not be accepted for the reason that the document at Annexure-A, page No.11 (NOC) is specifically issued under Rule 48 of the Rules. Plain reading of that document shows that the office of the Collector and District Magistrate was not alive to the facts of the facts, wherein what was required to be granted was the 'necessary approval under Rule 47' of the Rules and not the 'NOC' under Rule 48. 9. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. The NOC dated 07.08.2009 is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. No costs. 10. At this juncture, learned advocate for respondent No.2 requested that it be clarified that quashing of NOC will not prejudice the right of respondent No.2 to apply a fresh for grant of necessary approval of specifications and plans of premises proposed to be licensed under Rule 47 of the Rules. He also requested that the authorities be asked to consider /decide the application of respondent No.2, which may be made in this regard, in a time frame. The request of the learned advocate for respondent No.2, so far as providing of time frame is concerned, is premature at this stage and hence, not accepted. But so far as first part of the request is concerned, it is clarified that quashing of 'NOC' dated 07.08.2009 will not preclude respondent No.2 from making a fresh application for grant of necessary approval under Rule 47 and it will be open to the authorities to consider such application in accordance with law. If required, the learned advocates for the parties may apply for the certified copy of the bunch of documents produced by the learned advocate for the petitioner and the Registry will supply the same at their own cost. If required, the learned advocates for the parties may apply for the certified copy of the bunch of documents produced by the learned advocate for the petitioner and the Registry will supply the same at their own cost. A copy of this judgment and order be made available to Ms.Manisha Narsinghani, learned Assistant Government Pleader, for its onward communication for compliance. Direct service is also permitted in favour of learned advocate for respondent No.2.