ORDER : The petitioner, viz., IBP Company Limited, is an Indian Oil Group Company functioning under the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and is engaged in the storage, marketing and distribution of petrol and petroleum products all over India. The petitioner had decided to set up a Motor Spirit (MS) High Speed Diesel (HSL) Retail Outlet at Madagondapally Village, Denkanikotta Taluk, Krishnagiri District on the Thali Ozur Main Road and for that purpose, had applied to the District Collector, Krishnagiri District on 06.12.2004 for issuance of No Objection Certificate under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, which was granted by the respondent in proceedings bearing Roc.No. 47238/2004/C2 dated 22.03.2005 subject to the following conditions:- "(a) that the Oil Company should get prior permission from the Road Authorities concerned, before the commencement of the work. (b) that the Oil Company should produce the registered lease deed for the land for which No Objection Certificate is granted before obtaining the license from the Controller of Explosives. (c) the No Objection Certificate now granted, is subject to the outcome of the civil suit pending in I.S.No.26 of 2005 in O.S.No.8 of 2005, on the file of the District Munsiff cum Judicial Magistrate, Denkanikotta." Thereafter, by proceedings bearing Roc.No.47238/2004/C2, dated 01.08.2005, the District Collector, Krishnagiri withdrew the No Objection Certificate earlier granted, stating as follows:- "In the reference 1st cited, the No Objection Certificate, was granted to M/s. IBP Company Limited for the installation of Retail out-let with MS & HSD facility for the storage of 15 K.L. of Petroleum Class 'A' and 30 K.L. of Petroleum Class 'B' in S.No. 116/2 measuring an extent of 15625 sq.ft out of 1.05.0 Hectares classified as wet patta land of Madagondapalli Village, Denkanikotta Taluk in Krishnagiri District. Now, in the perusal of the records, some serious doubts are raised about the ownership of the above said land. Now, in the perusal of the records, some serious doubts are raised about the ownership of the above said land. Under these circumstances, pending disposal of the Civil Suit in I.A.N.26 of 2005 in O.S.No.8 of 2005 of District Munsiff cum Judicial Magistrate, Denkanikotta regarding the title of the ownership, the No Objection Certificate, already granted in Proceedings Roc.No.47238/2004, dated 22.03.2005 of the Additional District Magistrate and District Revenue Officer, Krishnagiri is withdrawn, the IBP Co., Limited, Chennai is requested to stop supply the petroleum products to the dealer and may be informed to the Deputy Controller of Explosives, Vellore for cancelling the Petroleum license." The withdrawal of the No Objection Certificate is impugned by the petitioner in this Writ Petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the power to cancel the No Objection Certificate under Section 150 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 could be exercised by the District Collector only on being satisfied that the licensee has ceased to have any right to use the site for storing petroleum and before he cancelling such No Objection Certificate, the licensee has to be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 4. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the only reason stated in the impugned order is that after the issuance of the No Objection Certificate, the District Collector had perused the records and raised some serious doubt regarding the title of ownership in the Civil Suit in O.S.No.8 of 2005, on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Denkanikotta. As mentioned earlier, the No Objection Certificate had been granted on the specific condition that it was subject to the outcome of the Civil Suit in O.S.No.8 of 2005, on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Denkanikotta as indicated in the proceedings dated 22.03.2005. That being the factual position, the reasoning of the District Collector that some serious doubts have been raised about the ownership of the property, which necessitated the cancellation of the No Objection Certificate does not appear to be justified. That being the factual position, the reasoning of the District Collector that some serious doubts have been raised about the ownership of the property, which necessitated the cancellation of the No Objection Certificate does not appear to be justified. That apart, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is nothing indicated in the impugned order to show that the petitioner had been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before cancelling the No Objection Certificate in terms of the proviso to Clause (1) Rule 150 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002. 5. It is further informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by Judgment and Decree dated 27.07.2011, the suit in O.S.No.8 of 2005 had been dismissed and in view of the same, there will be no purpose in remitting the matter for re-consideration to the respondent, viz., the District Collector, Krishnagiri. 6. In such view of the matter, the impugned order of the District Collector, cancelling the No Objection Certificate issued to the petitioner cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be quashed. 7. In the result, the impugned order in K.Dis. 47238/2004/C2, dated 01.08.2005 is quashed and the Writ Petition is allowed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.