JUDGMENT : Deepak Roshan, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following relief: - (i) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari, for the quashing the order dated 22.10.2024 (Annexure-8), passed by Respondent no.-2, in Miscellaneous Case No. 100 of 2024, whereby and where under the respondent no.-2 has been pleased to refuse to grant No Objection Certificate for setting up Petrol Pump, on the basis of opinion of Additional Superintendent of Police, NIA, Ranchi, that petitioner is charge sheeted in RC- 38/2020/NIA/DLI and RC-25/2020/NIA/DLI and both cases are pending in the Court of Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi. (ii) Further after setting aside the order dated 22.10.2024, passed by Respondent no.-2, in Miscellaneous Case No. 100 of 2024, further prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing upon the respondent no.-2 to grant No Objection Certificate for opening of Retail Outlet Dealership of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. at Bhusar, District-Latehar, corresponding to Mauza- Bhusar, Thana- Chandwa, Thana No. 283, Khata No.-New-25, old- 13, Plot No. New- 126, old-49, area- 2250 sq. MTR, District- Latehar. 3. A short question arises for consideration in this case, whether the pendency of two criminal cases against the petitioner under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 can form the basis for refusing the grant of a No Objection Certificate (“NOC”) by the Deputy Commissioner under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002. The answer to the question will decide the validity of the impugned order dated 22.10.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar in Miscellaneous Case No. 100 of 2024 by which the application of the petitioner for grant of No Objection Certificate for setting up of a petrol pump has been rejected. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner applied for dealership of a petrol pump on 20.12.2018 to the Indian Oil Corporation Limited. The petitioner deposited the security deposit of Rs.50,000 on 03.09.2022 and was thereafter awarded a Letter of Intent on 31.08.2023. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited by its letter dated 28.09.2023 requested the Deputy Commissioner for issuance of NOC. No response was received from the Respondent No. 2 and the inaction on the part of the Respondent no. 02 led to filing of a writ petition before this Court by the petitioner which was registered as W.P.(C). The Indian Oil Corporation Limited by its letter dated 28.09.2023 requested the Deputy Commissioner for issuance of NOC. No response was received from the Respondent No. 2 and the inaction on the part of the Respondent no. 02 led to filing of a writ petition before this Court by the petitioner which was registered as W.P.(C). No. 4121 of 2024. A bench of this Court by an order dated 19.08.2024 disposed of the same with the direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar to take a decision on the representation made by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt / production of the order. 4. After the above order was passed, the petitioner was served with a notice by the Respondent No. 02 to appear and file its written statement. On 20.09.2024, the petitioner appeared before the respondent no. 02 and filed its written statement in which it was inter alia stated that he has not been convicted in any case and reliance was also placed on the judgement passed by the Allahabad High Court in W.P.(C). No. 20359 of 2023 titled “Ashish Kumar Rai v. Union of India” dated 08.08.2023, in which the High Court of Allahabad has held that mere pendency of criminal case is not sufficient to deny the grant of NOC by a District Magistrate. Thereafter, the District Magistrate / Deputy Commissioner, Latehar by the impugned order dated 22.10.2024 refused to grant NOC for setting up of a petrol pump. 5. From bare perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar, had received information from the District Supply Officer, Latehar by a letter dated 19.09.2024 regarding the involvement of the petitioner in two cases pertaining to terror funding and therefore correspondence was made with the Superintendent of Police, NIA, Ranchi and Superintendent of Police, Latehar seeking their opinion. The Additional Superintendent of Police, NIA, Ranchi by a letter dated 07.10.2024 opined that the No Objection Certificate should not be granted in favour of the petitioner because against him two chargesheets were filed and consequently, he was facing trial in two criminal cases. 6. The facts stated above are not in dispute. 7. In the above factual background, Mr. The Additional Superintendent of Police, NIA, Ranchi by a letter dated 07.10.2024 opined that the No Objection Certificate should not be granted in favour of the petitioner because against him two chargesheets were filed and consequently, he was facing trial in two criminal cases. 6. The facts stated above are not in dispute. 7. In the above factual background, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel of the petitioner submitted that the District Magistrate / Deputy Commissioner has erred in refusing to issue NOC in favour of the petitioner by the impugned order for the following reasons: - (a) The Deputy Commissioner had to strictly act in terms of Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 and the said rule does not provide for refusing issue of NOC on the ground that criminal case(s) are pending against the applicant. (b) The brochure/guidelines on selection of dealers for regular and rural retail outlets through the draw of lots/bidding process vide clause 10 provides for the disqualifications of an applicant and on perusal thereof, it would transpire that it is only upon conviction of an applicant for an offence involving moral turpitude/economic offences (other than freedom struggle) can be a ground for refusing dealership and if that be so then pendency of a criminal case cannot be ground to refuse grant of NOC by a District Magistrate / Deputy Commissioner when the guidelines do not disqualify a person undergoing a criminal trial to participate in the selection process and get selected as a dealer. (c) The Deputy Commissioner could not have called for and consequently relied upon the opinion of the Additional Superintendent of Police, NIA while taking a decision on the application for grant of NOC and by doing so the Deputy Commissioner has taken into consideration extraneous factors and thereby committed an error of jurisdiction. (d) The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, which has been impugned in the writ petition does not disclose any reasons and also does not reflect any application of mind and hence is liable to be quashed and set aside. 8. (d) The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, which has been impugned in the writ petition does not disclose any reasons and also does not reflect any application of mind and hence is liable to be quashed and set aside. 8. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent while referring to the counter affidavit has contended that the impugned order is justified in law and has sought to rely upon cases in which the petitioner is facing the criminal trials and has termed them as genius offences, which shows the criminal mentality and antisocial attitude of the petitioner and therefore the grant of NOC to run a petrol pump would be risky which may result into various losses to the public at large and to the government as well. 9. The counsel for the respondent while arguing had sought to travel beyond the impugned order as also beyond the counter affidavit by submitting that the petrol pump in the event is allotted in favour of the petitioner and is operationalised can be utilised in terrorist activities. The said submission of the respondent’s counsel cannot be considered in view of the well settled principle of law that an order passed by an authority has to be tested on the reasons mentioned in the said order and cannot be improved by way of an affidavit and certainly not by way of oral submissions made by a lawyer representing such authority. 9. Having heard the counsel for both sides and perusal of the records, it appears that the impugned order dated 22.10.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar is solely based on the opinion of the Additional Superintendent of Police, NIA, Ranchi which in turn is premised on the fact that two criminal cases are pending against the petitioner relating to terror funding and murder of police personnel. The requirement to issue a NOC is mandated in terms of Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002. The requirement therefore is statutory, which also sets out the grounds on which such request for grant of NOC can be refused. On perusal of Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, it would transpire that pendency of a criminal case or cases under any provision has not been mentioned as a ground to refuse the grant of NOC. The requirement therefore is statutory, which also sets out the grounds on which such request for grant of NOC can be refused. On perusal of Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, it would transpire that pendency of a criminal case or cases under any provision has not been mentioned as a ground to refuse the grant of NOC. Even otherwise, an undertrial accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proven guilty and therefore, no disqualification can be attached to a person, unless the same is statutorily provided, and certainly not only on account of pendency of a criminal case or cases. 10. It is well settled that words of width and amplitude are not generally to be cut down so as to read into the language of the statute, restraint, and conditions, which the legislature (in this case, the appropriate government) itself did not think it proper or necessary to impose and the above is especially true having regard to the application of a presumption as salutary and deep-grained in our criminal jurisprudence as the presumption of innocence (Refer Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. v. State of Punjab , (1980) 2 SCC 565 ) The Supreme Court of India has time and again held that presumption of innocence is a basic human right. In the case of Sher Singh v. State of Haryana , (2015) 3 SCC 724 , it was held that though Article 20 of the Constitution of India does not affirm presumption of innocence of a suspect, but also does not prohibit it. It was further held that even though there may not be any constitutional protection of the concept of presumption of innocence, the same is so deeply ingrained in all common law legal systems, so to render it ineradicable, even in India and departure or deviation from this presumption demands statutory sanction. 11. In view of the above legal principles, one can safely infer that unless the Petroleum Rules, 2002 expressly prohibits the grant of an NOC in favour of a person who is undergoing a criminal trial, the same cannot form the basis of refusal of a NOC more so when the said ground is not available to refuse grant of dealership. 12. 12. The order impugned in the writ petition also suffers from the vice of complete non-application of mind for the reason that the Deputy Commissioner has not only failed to assign any reasons but has simply placed reliance upon the opinion of the Additional Superintendent of Police, NIA, Ranchi. A statutory duty was cast upon the District Magistrate / Deputy Commissioner to take a decision for grant or refusal of NOC strictly in terms of the statutory provisions by exercising due care and caution. Failure to abide by a statutory scheme, by itself is an error of jurisdiction. The order therefore stands vitiated on account of taking into consideration irrelevant factors and not considering relevant factors. 13. Viewed thus, the only inescapable conclusion that can be arrived at is that the order dated 22.10.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar in Miscellaneous Case No. 100 of 2024, refusing to grant NOC to the petitioner for setting up of a petrol pump solely on the ground that he is facing two criminal trials (albeit trial is being conducted by the Special Court, NIA involving offences punishable under the UAPA) is liable to be quashed and set aside. 14. Ordered accordingly. 15. Consequently, the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar is directed to issue No Objection Certificate in favour of the petitioner for opening a retail outlet dealership of Indian Oil Corporation at Plot No. 126 (New) / 49 (Old), Khata No. 25(New) / 13 (Old), Thana No. 283, Mouza Bhusar, District Latehar admeasuring 2250 sq. mts. unless the same is otherwise prohibited by the grounds mentioned by Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 or any applicable law and if such grounds is sought to be used against the petitioner, then he must be provided sufficient opportunity of being heard before a final decision is taken in this regard. 16. The writ petition stands allowed in the above terms. Pending I.As, if any, is also closed.