IMPORTANT POINT
Penalties should not be imposed for technical or venial breaches, and natural justice must be observed in administrative actions.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Avinash Kumar, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Nilotpal Sharma, learned AC to GP-21 for the State and Mrs. Kanak Verma, learned CGC for the Union of India.

2. The petitioner having been selected for retail outlet dealership of petrol pump under Indian Oil Corporation Limited has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs :

“(a). For issuance of appropriate Writ/ Writs, direction/ directions in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the letter of Divisional Forest Officer, Samastipur Forest Division, Samastipur being letter no-1208 dated 14.12.2017 issued in pursuance of Letter no.-FC-1104 dated 30.10.2017 under the signature of Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (CAMPA)-cum-Nodal Officer (Forest Conservation), Government of Bihar, Patna by which a demand of Rs.12,04,990.40 for plantation of 200 trees and its maintenance for ten years has been made in lieu of the penalty for operating the petrol pump without obtaining final approval from the Forest department ignoring the fact that the cost of Rs.14.680/- against NPV and Rs.1,79,280/- was already paid in compliance of the demand made under Rules/Guidelines with regard to afforestation of 50 Trees along with its maintenance for ten years for obtaining No Objection Certificate and as such the impugned demand being illegal and contrary to the Rules is required to be set aside.

(b). For issuance of appropriate Writ/ Writs, direction/ directions in the nature of mandamus or Writs, order or orders directing the respondent authorities not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner and allow the retail out-let of petrol pump in question to operate smoothly during the pendency of the writ application.

(c). Further directing the respondents to keep the impugned letter by which the demand has been made under abeyance till the final disposal of the writ application or may grant any other relief/reliefs which the Hon'ble court may grant in the interest of the public that may be deemed appropriate and necessary in this case.”

3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the petitioner being the aspirant of becoming entreprenuer applied for licence for opening retail outlet dealership of petrol pump within the district of Samastipur pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.10.2010 issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IOCL’) for location at Rosera under open category (W).

4. After having completed all the paraphernalia and the verification of documents as well as site, the petitioner was selected for awarding the aforementioned retail outlet dealership of petrol pump and the Letter of Intent for proposed ‘B’ site dealership of petrol pump at Rosera was issued in favour of the petitioner on 09.02.2012. After completion of the selection process, the Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Begusarai Divisional Office, IOCL filed an application along with required copies of Drawing of index map with a site plan before the District Magistrate, Samastipur for issuance of 'No Objection Certificate' as required under Rule-144 of the Indian Petroleum Rules, 2002. Pursuant to the direction issued by the District Magistrate and after verification of the documents as well as the site, all the concerned departments except the Forest Department submitted their 'No objection'. The copies of which have been marked as Anenxures-3, 4 and 5 to this petition. Further the Circle Officer, Rosera also issued Land Utilization Certificate vide its letter dated 03.04.2012 stating therein that there is no forest over the land, in question. When no action was taken at the level of the Forest Department, the petitioner filed an application along with the project report and other documents, whereupon the Forest Officer, Rosera inspected the site and submitted his report vide letter no.-143 dated 04.07.2012. It is the case of the petitioner that the aforenoted