The main legal point established in the judgment is that the communication dated 13-6-2016 was not an appealable order under Rule 154(2) of the Petroleum Rules, 2002.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. U. J. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M.G. Sarda, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. M.K. Pathan, the learned APP for respondent 4/State.

2. The petitioner is assailing the judgment dated 4-10-2017, rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge-2, Akola in Criminal Appeal 121/2016, whereby, in purported exercise of power under Rule 154(2) of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 (“Rules”), the appeal preferred by respondents 1 to 3, challenging the communication dated 13-6-2016, issued by the District Magistrate, Akola, informing the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives that no ‘no objection certificate’ (“NOC”) was issued to the petroleum service station of M/s. Harjimal Onkarmal – a partnership firm on plot 33/1, sheet 40-A of Akola, was allowed.

3. The petitioner contends that respondent 1, which is a registered partnership firm, is operating a petrol pump at Akola without valid NOC since 1-9-1961. The contention is premised on the assertion that the NOC was initially issued in the name of individual Mr. Harjimal Onkarmal on 16-4-1959. Mr. Harjimal Onkarmal expired on 26-5-1959 and the respondents 2 and 3 Mr. Mayur Murarka and Mr. Govind Murarka are operating the petrol station illegally in the name of respondent 1 – firm.

4. The petitioner contends that the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, acted pursuant to the petitioner’s complaint and directed the District Magistrate to submit report. It is then contended that the Additional District Magistrate, Akola reported that the petrol pump was being operated without valid NOC and the said view was approved by the District Magistrate, Akola, who accordingly submitted a report dated 17-6-2013 to the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives. The petitioner contends that the office of the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives issued notice to respondent 1 to show cause why action should not be initiated for cancelling the licence granted under the Rules, in view of the opinion of the District Magistrate that there was no valid NOC.

5. The petitioner contends that instead of filing reply to the show cause notice with the office of the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, the respondent firm preferred an appeal purportedly under Rule 154 before the Divisional Commissioner assailing the enquiry report dated 10-6-2013, submitted by the Additional District Magistrate and which was approved by the District Magistrate. The petitioner objected to the tenability of the appeal on the ground that the appeal assailed an enquiry report and not an order rendered by the District Magistrate. The Divisional Commissioner rejected the objection vide order 24-2-2014 and directed the petitioner to respond to the memo of appeal on merits.

6. The petitioner contends that the order of Divisional Commissioner rejecting the objection was assailed in Writ Petition 2374/2014. This Court allowed the petition vide order dated 27-7-2015 and held that the appeal preferred by the respondent 1-firm under Rule 154 of the Rules, challenging the report dated 10-6-2013 and its approval by the District Magistrate dated 15-6-2013, is not maintainable. This Court granted liberty to respondent 1 to assail the legality and validity of the enquiry report dated 10-6-2013 and the approval dated 15-6-2013 in an appropriate proceedings.

7. The petitioner avers that in view of the judgment in Writ Petition 2374/2014, the appeal preferred by the respondent 1 was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner vide order dated 18-9-2015.

8. The petitioner then contends that vide communication dated 13-6-2016 addressed to the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, the District Magistrate, Akola referred to the earlier communication dated 17-6-2013 and reiterated that no NOC was issued in the name of respondent 1 to operate petrol pump on plot 33/1. The District Magistrate asserted that the question of rendering an opinion in respect of NOC in the name of respondent 1 firm did not arise since no NOC wa