Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1500 (MP)

Anand Lal Patel v. Indian Oil Corporation

2013-12-02

U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2013
ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing the appropriate writ against the authorities of the respondents no.3 & 4 for the following reliefs:- (i) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby, quashing the order impugned dated 17.2.2013 (Annexure-P-10) and 6.7.2013 (Annexure-P-11) passed by the respondents No. 4 & 3. (ii) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or, direction in the nature of mandamus to command the respondent No. 3 to grant NOC to the petitioner. (iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which the Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case including the costs of the petition.” 2. Petitioner’s counsel after taking me through the averments of the petition as well as the papers placed on the record along with the impugned report dated 17.2.2013 (Annexure-P-10) sent by the respondent No. 4 Superintendent of Police, Katni to the respondent No. 3 Collector/District Magistrate, Katni and the order dated 6.7.2013 (Annexure-P-11) passed on the basis of aforesaid report Annexure-P-10, argued that the impugned out-let of the petrol pump after carrying out all requisite proceedings was allotted to the petitioner by the authorities of the respondents No.1 & 2 vide order dated 24.11.2012 (Annexure-P-5). Pursuant to it, in terms of the same the NOC besides the other authorities was also required from the Office of District Magistrate/Collector Katni. The other related departments have given the NOC while vide order dated 6.7.2013 (Annexure-P-11), the respondent No.3 on the basis of report of the respondent No. 4 (Annexure-P-10), has not given such NOC. In continuation he said that, such report is entirely based on the aforesaid report of the Superintendent of Police dated 17.2.2013 (Annexure-P-10). 3. The other related departments have given the NOC while vide order dated 6.7.2013 (Annexure-P-11), the respondent No.3 on the basis of report of the respondent No. 4 (Annexure-P-10), has not given such NOC. In continuation he said that, such report is entirely based on the aforesaid report of the Superintendent of Police dated 17.2.2013 (Annexure-P-10). 3. Mere perusal of such report of Superintendent of Police, (Annexure-P-10) it is apparent that no adverse thing was found against the petitioner and only on information either was available or collected by the Superintendent of Police that some distinct relatives of the petitioner were running a petroleum out-let of the same town, has committed irregularities, illegalities in connection of such out-let/petrol pump and on that basis, he has given the adverse report against the petitioner contending that the petitioner’s relative have committed irregularities and illegalities in connection of other out-let and, therefore, no objection certificate should not be given to the petitioner and on consideration, only on the basis of aforesaid report of Superintendent of Police, the impugned order Annexure-P-11, was passed by the Collector/District Magistrate. He further said that every citizen has own fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution of India, thus on the basis of irregularities, illegalities or any offending act committed by the other persons specially by the person, who is in distinct relation of the petitioner who is also not covered under the definition of family member defined under the rules of the respondents No.1 & 2, could not be a ground to refuse the NOC and in such premises, prayed to quash the aforesaid report of the Superintendent of Police (Annexure-P-10) and the order of the Collector/District Magistrate (Annexure-P-11) with a further prayer to give appropriate direction to such authorities to issue the NOC by admitting and allowing this petition. 4. On the other hand, counsel of the respondents No.1 & 2 has said that such respondents being authorities to allot the impugned out-let are bound to follow the rules and regulations and under the rule, such NOC is required from the aforesaid State Authorities and unless such NOC is given, the petitioner could not be permitted by them to install and run the alleged out-let. He further submit that on giving the NOC by the authorities of respondent No. 3 or any direction by this Court, then his authority has no objection in giving the impugned out-let to the petitioner and prayed to pass appropriate order. 5. Responding the aforesaid arguments of the petitioners’ counsel, State counsel by justifying the impugned order said that, the same being based on the information available and collected by the Superintendent of Police, does not require any interference. However, he in response of some query of the Court, fairly conceded that the petitioner does not come in direct relationship with such other person against whom irregularities and illegalities with respect of some other out-let was found and such relative do not fall under the definition of the member of family defined under the rules of respondents No. 1 & 2 but in any case, the authorities has not passed any order contrary to law and prayed for dismissal of this petition. 6. Having heard the counsel at length, keeping in view the arguments advanced, I have carefully gone through the papers placed on the record. 7. It is apparent that after carrying out all necessary formalities, the petitioner has been allotted the impugned out-let of petrol pump vide order dated 24.12.2012 (Annexure-P-5) but subject to terms and conditions of the authorities of the respondent no.2 according to which, in compliance of letter dated 4.2.2012 (Annexure-P-6), the NOC of some different departments were sought. 7. It is apparent that after carrying out all necessary formalities, the petitioner has been allotted the impugned out-let of petrol pump vide order dated 24.12.2012 (Annexure-P-5) but subject to terms and conditions of the authorities of the respondent no.2 according to which, in compliance of letter dated 4.2.2012 (Annexure-P-6), the NOC of some different departments were sought. Pursuant to that, except the NOC of the State authorities, the respondent no.4 all other respondents have given the NOC in favour of the petitioner and the same has been submitted in the Office of respondent no.1 & 2 but on going through the report of the respondent no.4 Superintendent of Police, Katni, dated 17.2.2013 (Annexure-P-10), it is apparent that no any other adverse thing was found personally against the petitioner but in such report it is mentioned that since long some relatives of the petitioner is running a petrol-pump in the same Town and they have committed irregularities, illegalities and some offending act in connection of their such other petrol pump and in such premises, the NOC was not recommended by the Superintendent of Police and only on such ground of irregularities and illegal activities of the distinct relatives of the petitioner without taking the factum that no personal allegation were made against the petitioner in such report and considering such report, the respondentno.3/Collector/District Magistrate, Katni, has passed the impugned order dated 6.7.2013 (Annexure-P-11) and finally decided that the NOC could not be given to the petitioner. 8. As per our Constitution, every citizen is having own fundamental rights enumerated under Article 19 and some other connected Article of the Constitution of India. The right of any citizen is not depending on the right or the activities of the other citizens. So in such premises, on examining the case, it is apparent that nothing was found against the present petitioner on which the NOC could have been refused by the authorities of the respondents No.3 and 4. But only on account of the activities or acts of some distinct relatives, who are not falling under the definition of member of family under the rules of respondents No.1 & 2, the recommendation to issue the NOC was not sent to the respondent no.3 by the respondent no.4 Collector/District Magistrate and without examining the aforesaid aspect, the respondent No.4 relaying on such report has also refused the NOC on the aforesaid ground. In such circumstances, it is apparent that on flimsy grounds which was not applicable in the present matter, the Superintendent of Police has not recommended the case of the petitioner for issuing the NOC, but the respondent No. 4 has also not considered the matter with proper approach and refused the NOC. 9. I am of the considered view that the aforesaid order and the report of Collector/District Magistrate, Katni and of the Superintendent of Police, Katni, respectively till the aforesaid extent is not sustainable. In the available circumstances, when the petitioner was otherwise found fit as no personal allegations were found against him, then on the basis of aforesaid ground that the distinct relative of the petitioner have committed irregularities, illegalities or any offending act, in connection of some other out-let, such NOC could not have been refused by any of the aforesaid authorities. So in such premises, the impugned report of the Superintendent of Police dated 17.2.2013 (Annexure-P-10) and the order of the respondent No. 4 The Collector/District Magistrate dated 6.7.2013 (Annexure-P-11) till the aforesaid extent that on account of aforesaid reason, the NOC, could not be given to the petitioner are not sustainable and deserves to be and are hereby quashed. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this petition is allowed and the following writ of certiorari and mandamus are issued against the respondents No. 3 & 4. A. The aforesaid report of Superintendent of Police, Katni dated 17.2.2013 (Annexure-P-10) and the order of the Collector/District Magistrate, Katni dated 6.7.2012 (Annexure-P-11) till the extent of not giving the NOC to the petitioner are hereby quashed. B. Pursuant to the aforesaid, the writ of mandamus is directed against the respondents No. 3 and 4, the Collector/District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police to issue the requisite NOC on the basis of available record in favour of the petitioner probably, within 60 days from today. C. In the facts and circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs of this petition. Petition is allowed as indicated above.