JUDGMENT: In view of the order dated 3/5/2016 of the Division Bench the petition is placed before this Court. 2. The petitioner is challenging the judgment and order dated 16/11/2015 passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, North Goa whereby the representation dated 8/9/2015 filed by the petitioner, has been rejected. 3. The brief facts are that the petitioner had filed PIL writ petition No.17/2015 before this Court challenging the alleged illegal grant of conversion sanad and a No Objection Certificate (NOC) under the Petroleum Rules, 2002 (Rules for short) to the fourth respondent Mrs. Maria Luiza Quadros and the fifth respondent Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL). The PIL was disposed of on 20/8/2015 directing that the representation to be filed by the petitioner to the District Magistrate shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. In consequence to the same, the petitioner filed a representation claiming that the NOC dated 3.4.2007 issued to the sixth respondent M/s. Reliance Petro Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (RPMPL) under Rule 141 of the Rules, for storage of petroleum products in survey no.280/1-A-1 of village Dhargal was illegal. It was claimed that as per the sanctioned plan, the petroleum storage tanks were located in southern corner of the plot which was subsequently shifted to another location. The change of location of the storage tank has not been approved by the District Magistrate. It was contended that the conversion sanad granted in respect of the said land was illegal in as much as the conversion fee was levied only for an area admeasuring 510 sq. meters, when the entire plot of 5000 sq. meters was being converted from agricultural to non-agricultural use i.e. for the purpose of petrol filling station. It was claimed that the NOC transferred in favour of Bharat Petroleum Corporation by issuing a mere corrigendum, which is not permissible. 4. The District Magistrate after hearing the parties has rejected the representation which brings the petitioner to this Court. 5. I have heard Shri Pangam the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the relevant record and the impugned order. 6. The District Magistrate after hearing the parties has rejected the representation which brings the petitioner to this Court. 5. I have heard Shri Pangam the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the relevant record and the impugned order. 6. On behalf of the petitioner, three contentions are raised (i) that the NOC could not have been transferred by issuance of a corrigendum alone, (ii) that the location of the storage tanks was changed without the approval of the District Magistrate and (iii) the conversion has been allowed and the conversion fee is levied only in respect of 510 sq.mtrs of land, although the entire plot of 5000 sq.mtrs is put to non agricultural use. 7. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has tenancy rights over the entire land of which 5000 sq.mtrs of the land (on which the petrol filling station is erected) is a part and as such, the petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid illegalities. The learned counsel has then elaborated upon the individual grounds. It is pointed out that the transfer of NOC can only be for valid reasons and in public interest and mere issuance of a corrigendum may not serve the purpose. It is submitted that the approval to the shifting of the storage tanks by the Town and Country Planning Department (TCP) would not be sufficient, as it is the District Magistrate who has to approve the same. It is further submitted that merely because a petrol filling station is a permissible activity in respect of an agricultural land in zone A1 and A2, the necessity to obtain a conversion sanad cannot stand obviated. It is submitted that the conversion sanad ought to have been issued in respect of the entire land of 5000 sq.mtrs and cannot be restricted to the portion admeasuring 510 sq.mtrs. 8. On the contrary it is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the grant of the NOC and its transfer. It is submitted that the alleged illegality cannot adversely affect the petitioner’s personal rights if any, as to tenancy. 8. On the contrary it is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the grant of the NOC and its transfer. It is submitted that the alleged illegality cannot adversely affect the petitioner’s personal rights if any, as to tenancy. It is pointed out that earlier the petitioner had approached this Court in public interest which would presuppose that the petitioner had no personal interest in the matter. It is submitted that now the petitioner cannot turn around and claim to be personally aggrieved by rejection of the representation. 9. In so far as merits are concerned, it is submitted that the District Magistrate after threadbare considering the representation has rightly rejected the same. It is submitted that the concerned statutory authorities including the Town and Country Planning Department has granted necessary permissions. It is submitted that once the establishment of a petrol station is a permissible activity in respect of agricultural lands falling in zone A1 and A2 the Collector was justified in finding that no conversion sanad was necessary. 10. I have carefully considered the rival circumstances and the submissions made. 11. In this case the record would disclose that the Village Panchayat Dhargal has granted necessary permission for construction of a retail outlet in the land survey no.280/1-A-1 vide permission no.06/2011-12 dated 15/12/2011 and a subsequent permission dated 22/7/2014 being permission no.01/2014-15 as per the approved plan and technical clearance from the Town and Country Planning Department. It would further appear that a part occupancy was granted on the basis of the completion certificate issued by the Deputy Town Planner, Pernem. 12. The impugned order would further disclose that the Chief Town Planner had recommended conversion of the use of land on the basis of the application which was referred by the Addl. Collector North Goa District. The plan was approved on 7/8/2008 and subsequently revised plan came to be approved on 1/7/2014 indicating shifting of the location of the storage tanks. The District Magistrate has noticed that revision of the approved plan is permissible under Regulation no. 3.8 (b) of the Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulations 2010. Collector North Goa District. The plan was approved on 7/8/2008 and subsequently revised plan came to be approved on 1/7/2014 indicating shifting of the location of the storage tanks. The District Magistrate has noticed that revision of the approved plan is permissible under Regulation no. 3.8 (b) of the Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulations 2010. The location of the storage tank was changed, as earlier, there were four petrol filling bays were approved, which were required to be brought down to only three, as the National Highways Authority, had desired that the bays be shifted backwards. Thus, the relocation of the storage tanks was on the basis of the insistence of the National Highway Authority and after obtaining the necessary permission from the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization (PESO). In this case the Health Officer, Primary Health Centre, Cansaulim Government of Goa had issued the NOC from the sanitary point of view on 25/6/2008. It can thus been seen that the petrol filling station has been erected after obtaining all necessary permissions, including the one for shifting of the location of the storage tank. Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization is an expert body which had approved relocation of the storage tank and thus it is not possible to accept that the shifting was illegal. 13. It is not disputed that in respect of agricultural land falling in zone A1 and A2, setting up of a petrol filling station is a permissible activity/use. The only contention in this regard is that still it would need a conversion sanad. Regulation no.26.VII and 26.VII a) of the Planning and Development Authority (Development Plan) Regulations 1989 show that in respect of agricultural and Orchard (Natural Reserve) land falling in Zone-A1 and A2 a petrol filing stations/LP Gas/Kerosene godown, is a permissible activity. That part, it appears that there was a case initiated on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner in the year 2012 alleging illegal conversion which was disposed of by the Dy. Collector Pernem on 3/7/2013. The petitioner did not challenge the said order any further. The District Magistrate had found and to my mind rightly so that there is nothing in the petroleum rules, which prohibits issuance of a corrigendum to change the name of the licencee and the corrigendum issued on 10/7/2007 and 14/3/2008 do not contravene the relevant rules. Collector Pernem on 3/7/2013. The petitioner did not challenge the said order any further. The District Magistrate had found and to my mind rightly so that there is nothing in the petroleum rules, which prohibits issuance of a corrigendum to change the name of the licencee and the corrigendum issued on 10/7/2007 and 14/3/2008 do not contravene the relevant rules. I have carefully gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Collector and the District Magistrate North Goa and I do no find that it suffers from any infirmity so as to warrant interference. That apart, it is difficult to see as to how the petitioner can be personally aggrieved in the matter even assuming that he has some claim as regards tenancy as claimed on behalf of the petitioner during the course of arguments at bar. It may not be out of place to mention here that initially the petitioner had approached this Court in a PIL which would presuppose that the petitioner had no personal interest in the matter. 14. Be that as it may, for the reasons stated above, the petition is without any merit and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.