The authority's rejection of a No Objection Certificate based on ownership disputes is beyond its jurisdiction under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, which mandates a focus on public safety.

ORDER :

(SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.)

The above writ petition is filed impugning the endorsement computer No.7998 dated 09.10.2023 issued by respondent No.3, rejecting to issue 'No Objection', as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 (1)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

2. The facts, in brief in the affidavit, are that respondent No.9 is the owner of Ac.00-79 cents in survey No.87/2B, Padmapuram Village, Araku Valley, Alluri Seetha Ramaraju District (hereinafter referred to as 'lessor'). The lessor leased out the subject property to the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'lessee'), under registered document bearing No.29 / 2013 dated 18.11.2013 for 28 years, two months. The petitioner has been doing agricultural activities since 2013 and thereafter in 2022, the petitioner applied for conversation of land from agriculture to commercial purposes, under the Andhra Pradesh Land Conversion Act, 2006. The permission was accorded.

b) While the matter stood thus, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL), respondent No.6, advertised on 24.12.2018 for awarding a retail outlet dealership at Araku Valley. In pursuance of the said advertisement, the lessee, made an application, to award MS/HSD Retail Outlet, Dealership at Araku Valley, Visakhapatnam District, in category ST, Type : CFS Regular, Advt. S.No.24. In response, the lessee received a letter of intent dated 05.07.2021. In pursuance of the letter of intent, the lessee applied for a grant of 'No Objection' from the appropriate authorities, as per the norms of BPCL and also made an application to the Tahsildar and Agency Sub-Registrar for the amendment of the lease deed, by inserting a provision for according sub-lease by the lessee to BPCL. The Tahsildar and Agency sub-Registrar issued an endorsement vide Rc.No.65/2019 SA dated 05.12.2019 and signed on 13.12.2019 (Ex.P5). Thereafter, the Sub-Collector, Paderu, respondent No.5 by proceedings in Rc.No.909/2019/SA-B dated 28.12.2022 (Ex.P6) submitted the report of the enquiry, conducted on the application for issuance of 'No Objection Certificate' made by Territory Manager (Retail), BPCL. The Sub-Collector, through proceedings in Rc.No.909/2019/SA-B dated 27.07.2023 (Ex.P3) forwarded the report dated 21.07.2023 (Ex.P2) submitted by the Tahsildar, Araku Valley, to the Joint Collector. Thereafter, the District Collector addressed a letter to the Territory Manager, BPCL, stating that it is not possible to consider the request for a grant of NOC over the subject land since there is a dispute. Subsequently, the District Collector issued proceedings impugned, rejecting the request of the lessee for issuance of NOC for the establishment of BPCL petrol bunk.

3. Heard Ms. Kota Krishna Deepthi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. M. Uma Devi, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri Bhagath Singh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 2 to 6. Though Sri N.A. Akbar, learned counsel filed vakalat for respondent No.9, there is no representation for respondent No.9.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contentions as per the averments made in the writ affidavit would contend that respondent No.3 exceeded its jurisdiction and issued the endorsement, impugned in this writ petition. Issuance of NOC from the District Authority is to protect public interest and public safety. The authority shall not adjudicate the disputes between the lessor and lessee, if any. Respondent No.3 failed to consider Exs.P2, P3, P5 and P6.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, per contra would submit that respondent No.3 conducted an enquiry and recorded the statements of the lessor and lessee. The authority eventually, found a dispute regarding the lease deed and based on the enquiry, the endorsement, impugned in this writ petition was issued. There are no merits in the writ petition. He prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

6. There was no representation on behalf of respondent No.