The central legal point established in the judgment is that the cancellation of a No Objection Certificate must be justified under the relevant rules and guidelines, and the court's decision was based on the interpretation of these legal provisions.

JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, heard finally with consent of the learned counsel appearing for the rival parties.

2. By this writ petition and petitioner has challenged orders passed by the District Magistrate and Divisional Commissioner, whereby No Objection Certificate granted to the petitioner to establish a petrol pump stood cancelled, primarily on the ground that it violated norms and guidelines of Indian Roads Congress 2009, as regards distance permissible between two petrol pumps on the same road/carriage way.

3. The facts leading up to filing of the present petition are that the petitioner applied for establishing a petrol pump i.e. a retail outlet under dealership of Indian Oil Corporation. The necessary formalities for allotment of the same were completed by the petitioner, which included No Objection Certificates from various departments, including Public Works Department etc. On the basis of having completed all documentary formalities and upon being found eligible, the respondent No.1 as the authorized officer granted the No Objection Certificate in favour of the petitioner.

4. Subsequent thereto, on a complaint that the proposed site of the petrol pump was within 300 meters of such an outlet already established, proceedings were initiated in the matter. It is the case of the petitioner that while the outlet that the petitioner intended to operate pertained to a Government Corporation i.e. Indian Oil Corporation, the other outlet which was said to have been established within the distance of 300 meters was that of a private company. On the proceedings being initiated for cancellation of No Objection Certificate, the petitioner contended before the respondent No.1 that the said proceedings ought not to be undertaken for the reason that the guidelines of which violation was alleged, were not properly interpreted and that in any case, once the No Objection Certificate was issued by the respondent No.1 it could be cancelled only in a specific circumstance. Nonetheless, by the impugned order dated 28.09.2018, the respondent No.1 proceeded to cancel the No Objection Certificate, on the basis that guideline No.4.6.1 of the Indian Roads Congress stood violated in the present case as another retail outlet of petrol was located within 300 meters of the site wherein outlet of the petitioner was established.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before the respondent No.2 - Divisional Commissioner. The appeal stood dismissed as the respondent No.2 agreed with the findings rendered by respondent No.1.

6. In this petition notice came to be issued. The respondents appeared through counsel.

7. Mr. Mirza, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 deserve to be set aside for more reasons than one. It was submitted that serious prejudice was caused by the impugned orders as the petitioner had spent huge amount of money in pursuance of the No Objection Certificate for establishing the aforesaid outlet. It was submitted the No Objection Certificate once granted could be cancelled only under one contingency as specified in Rule 150 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, framed under the Petroleum Act, 1934. It was submitted that the only ground on which such a No Objection Certificate could be cancelled was that the licensee had ceased to have any right to use the site for storing petroleum. According to learned counsel for the petitioner such was not the case or even the allegation against the petitioner and that therefore, the No Objection Certificate could not have been cancelled. As regards the alleged violation of the norms and guidelines of Indian Roads Congress, particularly 4.6.1 thereof, it was submitted that on a proper appreciation of the facts of the present case it would clear that the said guidelines would not apply, particularly because the outlet of the petitioner is located on a divided carriage way for which the prohibition