Back
2006 Supreme(AP) 1359
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHR APRADESH AT HYDERABAD
P.S. NARAYANA, J.
Vijaya Oil Company, Guntur rep. by its Partner V.R.K.V. Prasad Appellant
versus
Vijayawada, Guntur Tenali Urban Development Authority, Vijayawada and others Respondent
W.P. Nos. 34076 of 1997 and 25460 of 1999
Decided on 16-11-2006.
Advocate Appeared
Mr. Mowa. Chandrasekhara Rao, Counsel for the Petitioner.
Smt. K. Aruna, SC for V.G.T.M.U.D.A. for Respondent No.1 in W.P. 34076/97.
Smt. Jhansi, Counsel for the 2nd Respondent in WP 34076 of 1997.
Mr. P.V. Sanjay Kumar, Counsel for the 3rd Respondent in W.P.No.34076 of 1997.
Mr. G. Peda Babu, Counsel for the 4th Respondent in W.P.No.34076 of 1997.
G.P. for Civil Supplies for the 1st Respondent in W.P.No.24460 of 1999.
Mr. P.V. Sanjay Kumar, Counsel for the 2nd Respondent in W.P.No.25460 of 1999.
Smt. E. Urmila, Counsel for the 3rd Respondent in W.P.No.25460 of 1999.
Headnote:
Writ Of Mandamus – W.P. is filed praying for issuance of an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, especially one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent in Rc. and the consequential proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Roc. as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, without jurisdiction, mala fide, opposed to principles of natural justice and null and void and to pass such other suitable orders – Held, Here is a case where the Company in question had obtained all the approvals inclusive of No Objection Certificate and at this distant point of time on ground that certain objections had been raised, either on ground of health hazard or on ground of environmental problem, fire safety problem and other like problems, which are more or less general in nature, first respondent is not justified in making such impugned order – It is true that the impugned order is a lengthy order but devoid of any statutory infraction or violation – Court is satisfied that the discretion was not exercised in right perspective by the first respondent while making the impugned order and in view of the same, this Court is of the considered opinion that even if the language of Rule 151 of 1976 Rules is taken into consideration, Court is of considered opinion that writ petitioner is bound to succeed – Writ Petitioner Allowed
Vijaya Oil Company, Guntur is the writ petitioner in both these Writ Petitions.
2. W.P.No.34076/97 is filed praying for issuance of an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent in Rc.No.E1/381/97 dated 20-11-1997 and the consequential proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Roc.No.6847/97/G1 dated 28-11-1997 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, without jurisdiction, mala fide, opposed to principles of natural justice and null and void and to pass such other suitable orders.
3. Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali Urban Development Authority, Vijayawada, Municipal Corporation, Guntur and M/s. Hindustan Petrolium Corporation Limited, Secunderabad, were originally shown as respondents. G. Saraswathi, a neighbour, filed an application to implead herself as a party in WPMP. No.3173/98 and by order dated 1-7-98 she was impleaded as 4th respondent.
4. R-2 and R.3 filed counter affidavits and reply affidavit also was filed.
5. This Court on 22-12-1997 made the following Order:-
"Mr. A. Raghavaiah takes notice for R-1, Mr. T.S. Venkata Ramana takes notice for R.2 and Mr. Sanjay Kumar takes notice for R-3.
It appears prima facie that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to suspend the licence of the petitioner. Under Rule 153 of the Petroleum Rules, 1976 the Licensing Authority has got a right to suspend the licence on the grounds that the licensee ceases to have any right to the site for storing petroleum or if the No Objection Certificate was cancelled or for any violation of the Act. Proviso of the Rules also makes it clear that before suspension, the holder of the licence shall be given an opportunity. In the present case, this rule appears to have been complied only in its breach.
In the circumstances, there shall be interim suspension of the impugned order. Post the Writ Petition for admission after two weeks in M.L."
6. This Court issued rule nisi on 16-3-1998 and the interim order earlier granted was continued until further orders and the same was made absolute on 9-7-1998 while posting the Writ Petition itself for final hearing.
7. W.P.No.25460/99 is also filed by the self-same M/s. Vijaya Oil Company, Srundavan Gardens, Guntur, as against the Collector and the District Magistrate, Guntur, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, represented by its Regional Manager, Secunderabad, and Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, South Circle, Sastri Shavan, Chennai as respondents 1 to 3 praying for a Writ of Mandamus declaring impugned order of the 151 respondent in his proceedings Rc.No.3551/97-Ex.C.6, dated 3-4-99 which was despatched on 2-12-1999 and received by petitioner on 6-12-1999 as illegal, arbitrary, not bona fide, without jurisdiction, opposed to principles of natural justice and null and void and hit by Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and to pass such other suitable orders.
8. The first respondent filed counter affidavit specifying that the said counter is being filed on behalf of the other respondents also under their authorization.
9. A reply affidavit is filed.
10. This Court while issuing rule nisi on 10-12-1999, granted an order of status quo for a limited period, which was subsequently extended and ultimately continued until further orders on 27-1-2000 and the interim order, in fact, was made absolute on 18-4-2000 and the matter was directed to appear in the list subject to part-heard on 12-6-2000.
11. Thus, both these matters are taken up for final hearing before this Court on 3-11-2006.
12. Submissions of Sri Movva Chandrasekhar Rao:- Sri Movva Chandrasekhar Rao, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner would maintain that a Petrol Filling Station is permitted in a residential area and in fact, all the required permissions and the no objection certificate had been obtained but however the impugned orders were made in W.P.No.34076/97 without any authority and contrary to law and in such circumstances, the writ petit
