Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 182 (ALL)

Santosh Kumar Singh v. State of U. P.

2024-01-17

MANJIVE SHUKLA, SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH

body2024
JUDGMENT : Reply to the personal affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Neeraj Shukla alongwith Sri Prabhakar Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri M.K. Maurya, holding brief of Sri Nishant Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondent Corporation and Sri Arimardan Singh Rajput, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 3. Challenge has been raised to the order dated 29.3.2022 rejecting the petitioner's application to be issued a No-Objection-Certificate (NOC in short) to establish a petroleum retail outlet at Village & Post - Unchgaon, Tehsil - Machhalishahar on Shahganj - Prayagraj SH-7 Road, District - Jaunpur, U.P. 4. Undisputedly, the petitioner has been selected by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL in short) to establish the above described petroleum retail outlet. Letter of Intent (LOI in short) has also been issued in favour of the petitioner by HPCL, on 6.3.2020. Almost four years have passed since then. Petitioner has not been able to establish the petroleum retail outlet, primarily, owing to non-completion of formalities by the civil authorities. In that, the petitioner applied for grant of NOC by respondent No. 2/District Magistrate, Jaunpur. It was not issued to the petitioner. 5. Presently, upon earlier petition filed, the impugned order has been passed. NOC claimed by the petitioner has been denied, primarily for reasons of four criminal cases lodged against the petitioner. In his defence, the petitioner states, he has not been convicted in any of the four cases. All trials are pending. The petitioner has been enlarged on bail and is complying with the terms of such bail orders. As to the basis of allegations, it has been clarified, the petitioner had contested the election of Gram Pradhan. Arising from that, false criminal cases have been lodged against him. 6. In any case, it has been submitted, the existence of criminal cases against the petitioner may have no bearing on the NOC applied for by the petitioner. Referring to the Government Order No. 632 dated 4.2.2021, it has been submitted, the proforma for issuance of NOC nowhere provides disqualification occasioned by registration of criminal case against the allottee of the petroleum corporation. The conditions specified on the form of the NOC reads as below: HINDI IMAGE 7. Referring to the last clause HINDI IMAGE, it has been submitted, that clause pertains to impact on public security by establishment of petroleum retail outlet at any particular site. The conditions specified on the form of the NOC reads as below: HINDI IMAGE 7. Referring to the last clause HINDI IMAGE, it has been submitted, that clause pertains to impact on public security by establishment of petroleum retail outlet at any particular site. It has no nexus or bearing on the status of the applicant. 8. The stand taken by the petitioner has been duly supported by learned counsel for HPCL. 9. On the other hand, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted, if the NOC is issued to a person having a criminal history, public safety and security would stand compromised. Therefore, NOC has been rightly denied. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, while we do not propose to lay down any law as to the eligibility of a person to establish and run a petroleum retail outlet, what requires consideration in the present case is whether the petitioner is entitled to be issued a NOC by the state authorities. 11. Undisputedly, the NOC required to be issued by the state authorities has no bearing on the eligibility of the petitioner to be allotted petroleum retail outlet. That eligibility arises on the strength of eligibility conditions prescribed by HPCL. There is no lis between the parties that the HPCL has found the petitioner eligible to establish the petroleum retail outlet. Not only the petitioner has been selected to establish such outlet but the letter of intent has been issued. 12. On the other hand, NOC is necessary to be issued by the state authorities, primarily, because a petroleum retail outlet falls within the cover of the Explosives Act 1884. Being highly inflammable and hazardous, it requires specialized handling. Petroleum retail outlet may be established only at site found fit and appropriate by the state authorities. To that end, by way of recovery measure, NOC is required to be issued by the civil authorities. 13. Even otherwise, the plain language of the conditions prescribed on the NOC relate to the availability and suitability of the site proposed by the applicant to establish his petroleum retail outlet. To that end, by way of recovery measure, NOC is required to be issued by the civil authorities. 13. Even otherwise, the plain language of the conditions prescribed on the NOC relate to the availability and suitability of the site proposed by the applicant to establish his petroleum retail outlet. Thus, it is to be ascertained that the applicant has title and/or secure possession over the land; site is located at appropriate distance from other public facilities i.e. colleges, hospitals, etc.; its location may not create obstruction in free flow of traffic; it may be in conformity to the local development plan; it may be easily accessible at times of emergency. The object may be genuine. Last, the site must be suitable, considering the requirements of public safety. 14. The last clause does not create any right with the civil authorities to examine the character and criminal antecedents of the applicant to test the eligibility of the applicant to establish and run a petroleum retail outlet. As noted above, that consideration is to be made by the petroleum corporation, in this regard - HPCL. Again, as noted above, HPCL has no objection to the petitioner's eligibility and suitability as a person who may run such business. 15. In view of the above, the reasoning given in the impugned order is plainly perverse and is wholly unsustainable. It runs contrary to the policy of the State Government, as extracted above. The District Magistrate has misapplied himself and reached a completely erroneous conclusion as may never be sustained in law. 16. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 29.3.2022 and 8.12.2021 are set aside and the matter remitted to respondent No. 2/District Magistrate, Jaunpur to pass a fresh order keeping in mind the observations made above, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of one month from today. If any fresh objection is to be raised by the said respondent, he may issue appropriate show-cause notice to the petitioner and afford brief opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing fresh order. 17. In view of the above, present petition stands allowed.