Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 206 (UTT)

QUALITY FUEL CENTER v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2017-04-05

ALOK SINGH, K.M.JOSEPH

body2017
JUDGMENT K.M. JOSEPH, C.J. (Oral) Appellant is the third respondent in the writ petition. The writ petitioner was granted a NOC by the District Magistrate for the purpose of establishing a petrol pump. He is an ex-serviceman and he participated in the Kargil War also. The NOC granted by the District Magistrate was, however, cancelled. It is, thereupon, that the writ petition was filed seeking the following prayers: “i) a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 09.l2.2013 (Annexure-7) issued by Respondent no. 2 cancelling no-objection certificate of the petitioner/ respondent no. 4 dated 23.09.2013. ii) a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 2 to reconsider case of the petitioner/ respondent no. 4 for grant of no-objection certificate in their favour.” 2. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition. He noted that the writ petitioner was not heard. The learned Single Judge relied on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43483 of 2010 and held as follows: “6. As far as guidelines of Indian Road Congress are concerned, the same is not Statutory in nature, as has already been held by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43483 of 2010 (Mahtab Ahmad Vs Union of India & others decided on 29.07.2010) and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 64034 of 2010 (M/s Indian Auto Service Vs Union of India & others decided on 26.10.2010). Therefore, it would not be relevant for the present case. As far as Government Order dated 17.11.2011 is concerned, which has been annexed as annexure No. RA1 to the rejoinder affidavit, it pertains to such restrictions in a regulated area or a developed area. The present filling station, which is a matter of dispute, is outside these areas. Therefore, Government Order dated 17.11.2011 is not applicable in this case. 7. The most important aspect in the present case is that the impugned order has been passed without even giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner where the impugned order has clearly civil consequences. 8. Therefore, Government Order dated 17.11.2011 is not applicable in this case. 7. The most important aspect in the present case is that the impugned order has been passed without even giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner where the impugned order has clearly civil consequences. 8. Apart from the above facts, it is admitted fact that the Scheme, under which the petitioner is to be given a filling station, is under a beneficiary Scheme of the Government of India, which is for defence personnel. The petitioner is not only a defence personnel but also an ex-serviceman and a Kargil War Veteran. The ‘No Objection Certificate’ granted in his favour has been cancelled illegally, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, on a mere complaint of respondent No. 3, who has a clear business interest rather than any other interest in the matter. Moreover, if two petrol-pumps of different companies are installed adjoining each other, it would give a healthy competition to this area and this fact cannot be discounted. 9. In view of the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 09.12.2013, by which ‘No Objection Certificate’ of the petitioner has been cancelled, stands quashed.” 3. Appellant is the person, on whose objections, the District Magistrate cancelled the NOC. Appellant is running a petrol outlet being a dealer of Indian Oil Corporation. The writ petitioner seeks to get an agency from Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL), which is represented by Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate, before us. 4. The case of the appellant is that the distance to be maintained between two pumps is as provided in Government Order dated 17.11.2011. According to the appellant, under Column 3 of the same, the distance in plain areas beyond the limits of municipal authority is 1 km; whereas, under Column 4, if it is within the municipal area, the distance is 300 meters. In this case, according to the appellant, it is column 3, i.e. the distance of 1 km. which is applicable. 5. Per contra, Mr. Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 HPCL and Mr. Dinesh Gahtori, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 / writ petitioner, would support the order. In fact, Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel would submit that the Government Order dated 17.11.2011 is applicable. which is applicable. 5. Per contra, Mr. Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 HPCL and Mr. Dinesh Gahtori, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 / writ petitioner, would support the order. In fact, Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel would submit that the Government Order dated 17.11.2011 is applicable. He would submit that the location of the pump in question is in the plain area. 6. The argument of Mr. Siddhartha Sah is that the distance mentioned in the Government Order dated 17.11.2011 is not attracted. He would submit that the area in question is outside the limits of the specified area. The concept of specified area is to be found in the U.P. Special Area Development Authorities Act, 1986, which, by virtue of the U.P. State Reorganisation Act, 2000, is also applicable in the State of Uttarakhand. He would rely on the prefatory contents in the first page of the Government Order. He would also submit that the same District Magistrate had taken a contrary view in the matter. He would further submit that the Court may notice that the Company of which the appellant is a dealer is not before the Court. Thereupon, Mr. C.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant would point out that the writ petition in this case is not filed by HPCL, but it is filed by the person in whose favour the NOC is granted. 7. We would think that interest of justice requires that the judgment of the learned Single Judge be upheld to the point that the order is found to be bad for violation of principles of natural justice and full opportunit must be given to the parties to be heard by the District Magistrate. It will be open to the parties to place all their contentions regarding the exact provision, which is applicable, and a decision must be taken in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, we modify the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and sustain the same to the extent that the order cancelling the NOC is set aside; but, we direct that the District Magistrate will afford an opportunity of hearing to the parties and take a decision in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, we modify the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and sustain the same to the extent that the order cancelling the NOC is set aside; but, we direct that the District Magistrate will afford an opportunity of hearing to the parties and take a decision in accordance with law. For the purpose of facilitating an early disposal of the matter, the appellant, writ petitioner and the representative of HPCL will be present at 11:00 a.m. before the District Magistrate on 17.04.2017. The District Magistrate will afford an opportunity of hearing to all the aforesaid parties and take a decision in accordance with law. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the various contentions addressed by the parties. The issue to be decided by the District Magistrate is regarding the applicability of the Government Order dated 17.11.2011. 9. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs.