JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the Memo No. F.8(25)DM/W/JDL/2010/816-24 dated 10.05.2011 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) whereunder the respondent No. 2 has cancelled the No Objection Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner for setting up of a petrol pump at Old Motor Stand, Agartala. 2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. BN Majumdar for the petitioner and learned senior counsel, Mr. SM Chakraborty assisted by learned counsel, Mr. DC Nath for the respondents. 3. It is an admitted position that the petitioner is a partnership firm, running petrol pump having valid licence at Old Motor Stand, Agartala since long. According to the petitioner, their predecessor set up the petrol pump in the year 1938 and that is the first petrol pump in the Agartala city and No Objection Certificate was issued by the authority time to time and the petrol pump is running without any interruption. In the year 2011, notices were issued by the respondent No. 2 to shift the petrol pump on the ground that the location of the petrol pump is causing safety hazards to the public at large. It is also an admitted position that the petrol pump is established/set up in the jote land of the petitioner. The petrol pump is located in an island type land surrounded by road in all side at a location called Old Motor Stand. The District Magistrate issued notice on 10.01.2016 asking the petitioner for shifting the petrol pump from the present location. Thereafter, vide memo dated 26/28.03.2011 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why the No Objection Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner should not be cancelled and in response thereto the petitioner submitted some queries by letter dated 30.03.2011 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition). Following that show cause notice, by the impugned memo dated 10.05.2011 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) the No Objection Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 arbitrarily and in purported exercise of power cancelled the No Objection Certificate which is liable to the set aside and quashed. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 arbitrarily and in purported exercise of power cancelled the No Objection Certificate which is liable to the set aside and quashed. 4. The respondents contended that notice was issued to the petitioner to shift the petrol pump since it is causing safety hazard to the public at large because of its location in a crowded area of Agartala city. A Committee was constituted to inquire into the matter and the Committee submitted its report. The SDM also submitted a report, copy of which is marked as ExhibitR5, wherein it was mentioned that the petrol pump is located in a thickly populated area without any safety measure and thereby causing safety threat to the smooth functioning of the traffic system and also to the adjacent area and therefore suggested cancellation of the No Objection Certificate issued to the petitioner for running the petrol pump. 5. It is argued by learned counsel Mr. Nandi Majumdar that all the petrol pumps in and around Agartala city are within the crowded area and obviously by the side of the road having traffic. The petrol pump of the petitioner is running from 1938 and it is no doubt located in an island type land surrounded by the road in the Old Motor Stand. The certificate was issued by the Controller of Explosives and No Objection Certificate was issued by the District Magistrate as per Rules time to time. Raising the point of traffic congestion No Objection Certificate cannot be cancelled. He has referred to the provision of Rule 150 of The Petroleum Rules, 2002 and has submitted that a No Objection Certificate can be cancelled only in the event the District Magistrate or the State Government is satisfied that the licensee has ceased to have any right to use the site for storing petroleum. It is also submitted by Mr. Nandi Majumdar that for cancellation of a No Objection Certificate reasons require to be assigned but in the impugned order cancelling the No Objection Certificate no reasons have been assigned. 6. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Chakraborty has submitted that it is the admitted position that the petrol pump is located in a densely populated area and the vehicles move all around the petrol pump since it is the junction of four roads. 6. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Chakraborty has submitted that it is the admitted position that the petrol pump is located in a densely populated area and the vehicles move all around the petrol pump since it is the junction of four roads. Since the location of the petrol pump is causing hazard to maintain the traffic system in the area the authority asked the petitioner to shift the petrol pump and thereafter, following inquiry the No Objection Certificate was cancelled in the public interest. He has also submitted that here is the conflict of interest of public at large and the private interest. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel that when there is a conflict between the private interest and the public interest, the public interest should be given precedence over the private interest. The No Objection Certificate has been rightly cancelled and the order may not be interfered with. 7. The issue is very simple. Whether the cancellation of the No Objection Certificate by memo dated 10.05.2011 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) is according to law. For fair appreciation, let us reproduce here the contents of memo dated 10.05.2011 which reads thus: “GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE & COLLECTOR WEST TRIPURA DISTRICT (JUDICIAL SECTION) No. F.8(25)DM/W/JDL/2010/816-24 Dated 10.5.2011 MEMORANDUM Whereas, M/S Biswas & Sons running a IOC petrol pump at old Motor Stand, Agartala was asked to explain as to why NOC issued in their favour for setting up of petrol pump at Old Motor Stand, Agartala should not be cancelled vide Memo No. F.8(25)/DM/W/JDL/2010/533-48 dated 26/28.4.2011; AND Whereas, Sri Arghajit Biswas for and on behalf of M/S Biswas and sons, Motor Stand, Agartala has submitted a reply in response to the said Memo on 30.3.2011; AND Whereas, the reply of Sri Biswas is not satisfactory. It is clear that Sri Biswas has no valid reasons/points to submit. Now, therefore, in the public interest, the undersigned in exercise of power conferred upon me U/S (1) and (2) of Section 150 of the Petroleum Act, 1934 and Petroleum Rules, 2002, NOC issued earlier is hereby cancelled. Sd/ Illegible District Magistrate & Collector West Tripura. To, M/S Biswas & Sons, Owner of Petrol Pump, Old Motor Stand, Agartala.” 8. Let us have a glimpse to Rule 150 of The Petroleum Rules, 2002 which prescribes the provision for cancellation of No Objection Certificate. Sd/ Illegible District Magistrate & Collector West Tripura. To, M/S Biswas & Sons, Owner of Petrol Pump, Old Motor Stand, Agartala.” 8. Let us have a glimpse to Rule 150 of The Petroleum Rules, 2002 which prescribes the provision for cancellation of No Objection Certificate. The Rule reads thus: “150. Cancellation of no-objection certificate.—(1) A no-objection certificate granted under rule 144 shall be liable to be cancelled by the District Authority or the State Government, if the District Authority or the State government is satisfied, that the licensee has ceased to have any right to use the site for storing petroleum: Provided that before cancelling a no-objection certificate, the licensee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (2) A District Authority or a State Government cancelling a no-objection certificate shall record, in writing, the reasons for such cancellation and shall immediately furnish to the licensee and to the licensing authority concerned, copy of the order cancelling the no-objection certificate.” 9. A careful reading of the above Rule makes it abundantly clear that the District Magistrate or the State Government is authorized to cancel the No Objection Certificate if it is satisfied that the licensee has ceased to have any right to use the site for storing of petroleum. The storing of petroleum, according to the petitioner, is done according to the provision of petroleum Act and Rules made thereunder. Having satisfied about all requirements to set up a petrol pump, the IOCL has issued the licence and the petitioner is storing the petroleum having all safety measures and a certificate is also issued by the Controller of Explosives. So, according to the petitioner, for storing petroleum there is no point of any safety hazard. The respondents have taken the plea that the area is densely populated and overcrowded by the traffic because of the fact that the petrol pump is located in an island type land surrounded by road and that is an admitted fact. There is nothing in the show cause as to how the petrol pump is causing safety hazard or other hazard to the movement of the traffic. Simply because the traffic has increased manifold, which is a fact, the No Objection Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner cannot be cancelled, save and except, the provision prescribed under the law. 10. There is nothing in the show cause as to how the petrol pump is causing safety hazard or other hazard to the movement of the traffic. Simply because the traffic has increased manifold, which is a fact, the No Objection Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner cannot be cancelled, save and except, the provision prescribed under the law. 10. It is evident that the respondent No. 2 issued the impugned memo dated 10.05.2011 cancelling the No Objection Certificate simply stating that the petitioner could not give any satisfactory reason to the show cause notice. That is not a valid reason as required by law. Learned counsel, Mr. Nandi Majumdar has referred to the case of Yogesh Kumar and Others vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Others, (1990) 4 SCC 49 wherein the Apex Court in para 4 of the judgment observed: “4. The High Court has rightly observed that the District Authority under Rule 151 can cancel the ‘No Objection Certificate’ only when the licensee ceases to have any right to use the site for storing petrol. However, there are certain subsequent observations made by the High Court in the impugned judgment which might lead to an inference that so long as the licensee continues to have leasehold rights on the site, the ‘No Objection Certificate’ cannot be cancelled at all. That does not appear to be the correct position of law. On a reading of sub-rule (1) of Rule 151 it is clear that a ‘No Objection Certificate’ granted under Rule 144 can be cancelled wherever the licensee ceases to have any right to use the site for storing petrol and that right could be lost by a licensee either by his tenancy or right to the use of the site coming to an end or for any other reason whereby, in law, the right to use the site for storing petrol ceases.” 11. All State action affecting the right of a citizen should be taken according to the procedure established by law. The State cannot curtail the right of a citizen beyond such prescribed procedure. The petitioner is running the petrol pump in their jote land set up many years ago and No Objection Certificate was issued by the respondent No. 2 time to time observing all formalities. There is no specific allegation that the petrol pump is hazardous to safety security of the common man. The petitioner is running the petrol pump in their jote land set up many years ago and No Objection Certificate was issued by the respondent No. 2 time to time observing all formalities. There is no specific allegation that the petrol pump is hazardous to safety security of the common man. Simply because the traffic has increased in the area the right of the petitioner to run the petrol pump cannot be taken away. Rule 150 of the Petroleum Rules clearly stipulate that No Objection Certificate can be cancelled only in the event the licensee ceases to have any right to use the site for storing petrol. In the impugned memo dated 10.05.2011 there is nothing to show that the licensee, i.e. the petitioner has ceased the right to use the site for storing petrol. Public interest always prevails over the private interest but while the private interest is safeguarded and is subject to certain procedure prescribed by law, it has to be interfered following that procedure and not otherwise. It is the settled proposition that where certain action has to be taken according to certain procedure prescribed by law, it has to be taken according to that procedure and not otherwise. Since, the Petroleum Rules prescribe a certain procedure for cancellation of No Objection Certificate the respondents simply assigning reason of public interest cannot curtail the right of the petitioner in respect of running the petrol pump. 12. The impugned memo dated 10.05.2011, in my considered opinion, has not been issued in accordance with the provisions prescribed under the law and hence, it is liable to be set aside and quashed. Accordingly, the said memo dated 10.05.2011 is quashed. 13. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of. Parties to bear their own costs.