JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order passed by the Collector, Bhadrak in Misc. Case No.11 of 2015 vide Annexure-7 to this writ petition. 2. Short background involved in the case is that the petitioner was issued with a letter vide Annexure-1 by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited intimating the petitioner therein that it has been qualified for draw for selection of Rajiv Gandhi LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) pursuant to advertisement dated 29.11.2013. Subsequently, letter of intent vide Annexure-2 was issued in favour of the petitioner with conditions quoted therein. Vide Annexure-4(s) different authorities have granted no objection certificate in favour of the petitioner following detail scrutiny of the matter. By an order dtd.6.04.2015 the petitioner was granted permission for having storage shed following the provisions of Gas Cylinder Rules, 2004 making it valid till 5.07.2015 or till issuance of the license duly endorsed whichever is earlier. It is contended by Miss Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner that following such permission, the petitioner has made a huge investment of Rs.15,00,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Lakhs) for construction of godown and showroom. Upon completion of construction, the petitioner has already started distribution of gas cylinder to the assigned consumers. Petitioner next contended that while the matter stood thus, an objection was raised by a group of villagers objecting the grant of such permission. Finding no decision on their representation, the villagers filed a writ petition bearing W.P. (C) No.11608 of 2015 before this Court. This Court after hearing the petitioners therein and the opposite party No.1 disposed of the writ petition on 5.08.2015 by passing the following order : “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel and Mr. B. Nayak for opposite party No.1. The grievance of the petitioner is that opposite party No.6-Laxmipriya Behera has been selected as LPG Gas Distributor under the Rajib Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitarak Yojana for Sabarang Grama Panchayat in the district of Bhadrak, but she is storing the LPG Gas Cylinders on Plot No.3888 of Ward No.11 inside the villager, which is surrounded by the residential houses of the villagers, posing danger to the life and property of the villagers. The petitioner and other villagers have in this regard complained before the Collector and District Magistrate, Bhadrak by way of representations on 02.03.2015 & 20.06.2015 under Annexures-4 & 6, but the representations have not yet been considered. Considering the nature of grievance of the petitioner and without going into merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Collector, Bhadrak-opposite party no.3 to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner (Annexures-4 and 6) within a period of three weeks from the date of communication of this Order along with a copy of the writ petition. Requisites for communication of the order be filed in course of this week. Issue urgent certified copy.” 3. Following the above direction, the Sub-Collector registered the complaint as Misc. Case No.11 of 2015 on its file and after hearing the respective parties, the Collector, Bhadrak by its order dated 16.10.2015 directed the present petitioner to shift the alleged LPG Gramina Vitarak Godown to a distance place of her own within a period of six months from the date of that order. The order dated 16.10.2015 under Annexure-7 is impugned in the present writ petition. 4. In assailing the impugned order Miss. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Collector’s order is erroneous on varieties grounds in as much as firstly, the Collector should not have accepted the report of Sub-Collector, since the same was running contrary to the provisions contained in Gas Cylinder Rules, 2004 and further contended that in spite of positive views given by the competent authorities like Tahasildar, Bhadrak, Assistant Fire Officer, Fire Station, Bhadrak, Inspector In-Charge of Bhadrak (Rural) Police Station including the Superintendent of Police, Bhadrak, the Collector, Bhadrak, has passed a negative order. Petitioner further contended that in view of grant of no objection by the competent authorities and ultimate grant of permission for having the distribution of gas cylinders, the petitioner has already made a huge investment of Rs.15,00,000/-(Rupees fifteen lakhs) and if it is asked to shift the store at this point of time, the loss to be sustained by the petitioner cannot be compensated. 5. During course of argument, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the private opposite parties apart from taking this Court to verities of objections in their counter raised varieties of other objections. Apart from filing a detailed counter, Mr. 5. During course of argument, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the private opposite parties apart from taking this Court to verities of objections in their counter raised varieties of other objections. Apart from filing a detailed counter, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the private opposite parties on the other hand, contended that the petitioner is not having the LPG Vitarak counter over its own plot and further contended that in view of objection of the Superintendent of Police, Bhadrak in his report as well as the objections raised in the Sub-Collector’s report, the Collector, Bhadrak did no wrong in passing the impugned order and there is no scope for interfering the in the same. On considering all these submissions, this Court finds there is no discussion with regard to all these submissions by the Collector in the impugned order and the matter is decided only on the basis of the Sub-Collector’s Report. Learned counsel for the Union of India as well as the State Counsel on their appearance made endeavours to support the impugned order and argued in the line of the private opposite parties. Heard. 6. There is no denial to the fact that the Misc. Case No.11 of 2015 was initiated on the direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No.11608 of 2015 based on a complain raised by the private opposite parties. Perused the impugned order. In the judgment, the Collector, Bhadrak, after discussing the submissions of the respective parties, has arrived in his findings. In the finding the Collector, Bhadrak has categorically indicated that the petitioner had no objection from all the authorities like Tahasildar, Bhadrak, Assistant Fire Officer, Fire Station, Bhadrak, Inspector In-Charge of Bhadrak (Rural) Police Station including the Superintendent of Police, Bhadrak and having their positive views for installation / functioning of LPG over the plot of opposite party No.6 therein, but however keeping in view the report of the Sub-Collector, Bhadrak disclosing the petitioner not satisfying the criteria required, for having such counter appearance to have allowed the objection of the private opposite parties. 7. Thus, sole point for consideration in the present case is whether the report of the Sub-Collector was suffering on account of provision contained in Rule 2004 and whether it should have accepted or not ? 7. Thus, sole point for consideration in the present case is whether the report of the Sub-Collector was suffering on account of provision contained in Rule 2004 and whether it should have accepted or not ? Looking to the report of the Sub-Collector submitted on the direction of the Collector-District Magistrate, Bhadrak on 23.09.2015 as appearing at Annexure-C/8, this Court finds the Sub-Collector has the following observation on verification of the site : “On verification of the site it is seen that, the following houses are situated within a distance of 100 Mts from the LPG Gas Godown : 1. The house of Rabindra Jena, S/o.-Bholanath Jena is situated at a distance of 30 Mts from the Gas Godown. 2. The house of Khagaeswar Mohapatra, S/o-Monaranjan Mohapatra is situated at a distance of 13 Mts from the Gas godown. 3. The house of Murali Jena, S/o-Narayan Jena, Bijaya Jena, S/o-Anadi Jena, Ranjan Jena, S/o-Narayan Jena, Ramakanta Jena, S/o-Bhagaban Jena all are situated within a distance of 100 Mts from the Gas Godown. 4. The house of Mrutunjaya Mohapatra and near about 23 other households in the Mohapatra Sahi are also situated within a 100 Mts of the Gas Godown. Similarly, 20 households of Jenasahi which is a Harijan Basti is situated within the radius of 100 Mts from the Gas Godown.” 8. Now coming to the restriction imposed for having a LPG Godown as provided in the Gas Cylinder Rules, 2004, this Court finds Rule 48 mandates for requirement of no objection certificate from various authorities, Rule 49 deals with for application for license, Rule 50 deals with grant of license. Form ‘F’ under the heading License to store compressed gas cylinders, framed under rules 50, 51 and 54 of 2004 Rules at Clause 5 deals with particular distance in between the store and adjoining property. “FORM F” xxx xxx xxx xxx 5. Form ‘F’ under the heading License to store compressed gas cylinders, framed under rules 50, 51 and 54 of 2004 Rules at Clause 5 deals with particular distance in between the store and adjoining property. “FORM F” xxx xxx xxx xxx 5. The following distances shall be kept clear at all times, between any building, public place, public road or any adjoining property which may be built upon and the storage shed used for the storage of liquefied petroleum gas cylinder : Quantity of compressed as in cylinder Minimum distance to be kept clear 0 - 100 - 101 - 2,000 3 2,001 - 3,000 4 3,001 - 4,000 5 4,001 - 6,000 6 6,001 - 8,000 7 8,001 - 10,000 8 10,001 - 12,000 9 12,001 - 20,000 12 Over 20,000 15 Provided that the distance specified above may be reduced by the Chief Controller (i) where screen walls are provided or other special precautions taken, or (ii) where there are special circumstances which in the opinion of the Chief Controller would justify such reduction. From reading of the rules as well as the contents of the Form F makes it clear that gap of at least 6 meters for a store having capacity 4,001 to 6,000 cylinders. The present case deals with permission upto 5,000 cylinders. It is under these circumstances, the restriction criteria is that there should be a minimum distance of six meters from the store to the adjoining properties. 9. Now looking to the observations of the Sub-Collector as quoted hereinabove, it appears that the minimum distance of storing place from the adjoining property appears to be house of one Rabindra Jena, S/o-B.N. Jena, situates at a distance of 30 meters from the godown and the house of one Khageswar Mohapatra situates at a distance of 13 meters from the godown site. Consequently, this Court comes to hold that the observations and recommendations in the Sub-Collector’s report runs contrary to the provisions contained in Rule 2004 and it ought not to have been accepted. 10. From the above, this Court is of the view that with the recordings made therein there was no case of violation of conditions under the Gas Cylinder Rules, 2004 by the petitioner. Consequently, the recommendations given by the Sub-Collector are also inappropriate. 10. From the above, this Court is of the view that with the recordings made therein there was no case of violation of conditions under the Gas Cylinder Rules, 2004 by the petitioner. Consequently, the recommendations given by the Sub-Collector are also inappropriate. From the impugned order, this Court finds, the Collector was satisfied with that the petitioner had all sorts of no objections from varieties of authorities and the sole consideration of allowing the Misc. Case bearing No.11 of 2015 was on the basis of report submitted by the Sub-Collector. Since the suggestions and recommendations in the report of the Sub-Collector was contrary to the provision contained in Rule 2004, this Court finds the finding of the Collector, Bhadrak in allowing the complain of the private opposite parties is not only erroneous but also contrary to the provisions contained in Rule 2004. Under the circumstances, this Court while interfering in the impugned order under Annexure-7, sets aside the same. 13. The writ petition succeeds to the extent directed hereinabove. However, there is no order as to cost.