ORDER : Sangeet Lodha, J. 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned legality of order dated 28.3.17 issued by the District Magistrate, Nagaur, whereby the No Objection Certificate (NOC) issued in favour of the petitioner for operating a retail outlet of petroleum products has been suspended in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 150 of Petroleum Rules, 2002 (for short "the Rules of 2002") on account of failure of Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) to obtain the order for diversion of the approach road constructed on forest land to non-forest activities from the Department of Forest under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (for short "the Act of 1980"). The facts relevant are that the respondent-IOCL purchased the land bearing khasra No. 898 (old khasra No. 734/2) in village Bherunda, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur for establishing a retail outlet of petroleum products. After obtaining NOC from the different authorities, the IOCL commissioned Company owned and Company operated retail outlet on 28.12.99. Subsequently, in the year 2001, the IOCL appointed the petitioner as dealer to operate the said retail outlet, which is being operated by the petitioner continuously on the site in question. 2. On 18.5.16, a Divisional Forest Officer came over the retail outlet operated by the petitioner and stated that the approach road to retail outlet has been constructed on the forest land, which amounts to non-forest activities under the Act of 1980 and thus, the petitioner has to obtain order for diversion of the land forming part of the approach road to non-forest activities. Vide communication dated 24.5.16, the Deputy Conservator of Forest addressed to the District Collector, Nagaur, the IOCL was advised to forward the proposal to the Additional Chief Conservator of Forest, Nodal Officer, FCA, Rajasthan, Jaipur for diversion of the approach road to non-forest activities. The District Magistrate, Nagaur in its turn vide communication dated 9.6.16 directed the petitioner to submit the proposal for diversion of the approach road constructed on forest land for non-forest activities. The petitioner vide communication dated 22.6.16 addressed to the District Magistrate, Nagaur, clarified that the IOCL has already started the process for submitting a proposal for diversion. Yet another notice dated 29.6.16 issued by the District Magistrate, Nagaur, informed the petitioner that appropriate proceedings be taken for the purpose of diversion of the land use, failing which ex-parte proceedings shall be taken. 3. Yet another notice dated 29.6.16 issued by the District Magistrate, Nagaur, informed the petitioner that appropriate proceedings be taken for the purpose of diversion of the land use, failing which ex-parte proceedings shall be taken. 3. The IOCL vide communication dated 3.7.16 apprised the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Nagaur that once the documentation is complete, the IOCL will forward the proposal for diversion of forest land. The IOCL applied online seeking diversion of the forest land. The application made by the IOCL online was forwarded in hard copy by the Deputy Conservator of Forest to the Chief Conservator of Forest, with the recommendation that the proposal made by the IOCL deserves to be accepted. During the pendency of the consideration of the proposal made by the IOCL as aforesaid, vide communication dated 15.3.17, the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Nagaur informed the Deputy Manager, IOCL, Ajmer Division to submit the certificate issued from District Collector, Nagaur under the provisions of Scheduled Tribes & Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (the Act of 2006). It was clarified that in absence of the said certificate, the proposal of IOCL for diversion shall not be forwarded to the State Government. The petitioner vide application dated 15.3.17, requested the District Magistrate, Nagaur to issue the requisite certificate under the Act of 2006. However, the District Magistrate instead of considering the request of the petitioner for issuing the certificate as desired by the Department of Forest, vide order dated 28.3.17 proceeded to suspend the NOC granted in favour of the IOCL to operate retail outlet on the ground that despite adequate time being granted, the petitioner has not obtained the diversion order which is violative of Gazette Notification 2004 issued by the Ministry of Forest & Environment, Government of India. Hence, this petition. 4. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that admittedly, the retail outlet in question is being operated since 1999 and at the relevant time when the retail outlet is commissioned, there was no requirement to obtain diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes under the Act of 1980 and the requirement was first time introduced by the Ministry of Environment and Forest (FC Division) vide notification dated 15.7.04, which cannot be applied retrospectively, yet the petitioner had taken all necessary steps to obtain the diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes and in this process, as directed by the Department of Forest, the petitioner had requested the District Magistrate, Nagaur to issue the certificate under the Act of 2006 but instead of doing the needful and issue the certificate applied for, acting in most perfunctory manner, the NOC issued in favour of the IOCL for operating the retail outlet has been suspended. Learned counsel submitted that admittedly, the impugned action has been taken by the District Magistrate, Nagaur in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 150 whereas, under the said rule, the District Magistrate though empowered to take proceedings for cancellation of NOC, has no power to suspend the NOC granted and thus, the action of the District Magistrate, Nagaur in suspending the NOC issued in favour of the petitioner is ex facie without jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that the retail outlet in question is being operated since 1999 and the requirement of the diversion of the forest land was never insisted upon by the respondent authorities for all these years and now when the IOCL was directed to obtain the diversion as mandated by the notification issued by the Government of India, the proposal has already been submitted but the same has not been further processed inasmuch as, the requisite certificate under the Act of 2006 has not been issued by the District Magistrate. Learned counsel submitted that instead of taking the proceedings for issuance of the certificate applied for, the action of the District Magistrate in suspending the NOC is apparently arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable and therefore, deserves to be quashed. 5. Learned counsel submitted that instead of taking the proceedings for issuance of the certificate applied for, the action of the District Magistrate in suspending the NOC is apparently arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable and therefore, deserves to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the action against the petitioner has been taken pursuant to order dated 2.3.2017 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this court in S.B. Writ Petition (C) No. 5709/16 Smt. Sharda Choudhary vs. District Magistrate and Others. Learned counsel submitted that the matter has not attained finality and thus, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 28.3.2017 is premature. Learned counsel submitted that since the IOCL has not been able to obtain the diversion of forest land to non-forest activities despite adequate time being granted, the action of the District Magistrate in suspending the NOC cannot be faulted with. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 7. Indisputably, the retail outlet in question is being operated on the strength of NOC issued by the District Magistrate, Nagaur since 1999. It is not the case of the respondents before this court that prior to the issuance of the notification 2004, there was any such requirement to obtain the diversion of the approach road falling within the forest land to non-forest activities. The material placed on record reveals that the petitioner and the IOCL had taken appropriate steps to obtain the diversion order from the Department of Forest, Government of Rajasthan. It is also not in dispute that the Deputy Conservation of Forest noticing all the relevant facts recommended to the Government to permit the diversion applied for by the IOCL. It is also not in dispute that the application seeking diversion submitted by the IOCL could not be further processed for want of the requisite certificate under the Act of 2006 for which the IOCL had already made an application to the District Magistrate, Nagaur. Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of case, instead of processing the application of the petitioner for grant of requisite certificate under the Act of 2006, if the IOCL was entitled therefore, the action of the District Magistrate in suspending the NOC granted to operate the retail outlet is avowedly arbitrary and unjustified. 8. Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of case, instead of processing the application of the petitioner for grant of requisite certificate under the Act of 2006, if the IOCL was entitled therefore, the action of the District Magistrate in suspending the NOC granted to operate the retail outlet is avowedly arbitrary and unjustified. 8. Admittedly, the impugned action in suspending the NOC granted in favour of the petitioner has been taken by the District Magistrate in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 150 of the Rules of 2002, which reads as under: "Rule 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 bare perusal of Rule 150 makes it abundantly clear that under the said rule, District Authority is empowered to cancel the NOC on being satisfied that the licensee has ceased to have any right to use the site for storing petroleum but it in no manner empowers the District Authority to suspend the NOC pending consideration of proposal for cancellation of the NOC. It is not out of place to mention here that Rule 152 of the Rules, which deals with cancellation of the license, specifically empowers the District Authority to suspend the license as well and thus, it is apparent that wherever the rule making authority intended to confer the power of suspension, the specific provision has been incorporated. In this view of the matter, in absence of any provision under the Rules of 2002 empowering the District Authority to suspend the NOC, the action of the District Magistrate, Nagaur in suspending the NOC issued in favour of the petitioner, is ex facie without jurisdiction. 10. In this view of the matter, in absence of any provision under the Rules of 2002 empowering the District Authority to suspend the NOC, the action of the District Magistrate, Nagaur in suspending the NOC issued in favour of the petitioner, is ex facie without jurisdiction. 10. It is true that the order impugned has been passed by the District Magistrate pursuant to the order dated 2.3.17 passed by this court in S.B. Writ Petition (C) No. 5709/16 but then, a perusal of the order dated 2.3.17 passed by this court as aforesaid reveals that this court had directed the District Magistrate to take appropriate action against Pusa Ram, the respondent No. 6 therein, alleged to be owner of M/s. Girdhar Filling Station, for the alleged violation of the requirement under the law for obtaining the order for diversion of the forest land to non-forest activities. Obviously, the action pursuant to the interim order was required to be taken by the District Magistrate in accordance with law and not in perfunctory manner acting without jurisdiction. It is pertinent to note that in the Writ Petition No. 5709/16 filed by Smt. Sharda, Pusa Ram, the respondent No. 6 therein, is shown to be the owner of the petitioner herein, a proprietorship concern whereas, the proprietor of the petitioner concern is Jitendra Choudhary and not Shri Pusa Ram. Be that as it may, merely because, the order impugned is passed by the District Magistrate pursuant to the interim order passed by this court in yet another writ petition, cannot be treated to be valid, which is otherwise found to be illegal for the aforesaid reasons. In the result, the petition succeeds, it is hereby allowed. The order impugned dated 28.3.17 passed by the District Magistrate, Nagaur cancelling the NOC granted in favour of the petitioner for operating the retail outlet in question is quashed. The District Magistrate, Nagaur is directed to consider and decide the application preferred by the petitioner seeking certificate under the Act of 2006 required for further processing the petitioner's application for the purpose of diversion of the approach road forming part of forest land to non-forest activities, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Needless to say that if the petitioner fails to obtain the order for diversion of the approach road forming part of the forest land to non-forest activities, the District Magistrate shall be at liberty to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Petition Allowed.