SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Mad) 1111

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
Kanyakumari District Petroleum Dealers Association, rep. by its Secretary S. Kumar, Chungankadai, Kanyakumari District
Versus
District Revenue Officer and Additional District Magistrate, Nagercoil and Others
W.P. No. 93 of 2006, W.P.M.P. No. 93 of 2006 and W.V.M.P. No. 224 of 2006
Decided On : 19-04-2006

Advocates Appeared:
V. Sanjeevi, for Petitioner.
S. Parthasarathy, for Respondents.

Grant of No Objection Certificate under Rule 144 of Petroleum Rules, 2002 is an Administrative Order.

Headnote:Petroleum Rules, 2002, Rule 141 - Rule 144 - Grant of NOC - Rival businessmen cannot file a writ petition challenging setting up of a similar unit by another businessman even if it is in violation of law, since no right vested in such petitioners is infringed thereby - Petitioner Association failed to establish any breach of statutory duty or obligation by respondent or any violation of statute - Order granting NOC to respondent cannot be interfered with, at behest of petitioner Association-Competitors.

       

Judgment :

By consent of both the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and disposal.

2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent relating to the order granting No Objection Certificate to the third respondent in Ref.No. R.Dis. 51947/2005 (C1) dated 28.10.2005 for installation of storage tanks of petroleum Class A and Class B in the land bearing S.No. 84/5 and 84/6A in Aloor Villager, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District and to quash the same and forbear the second respondent herein from granting licence to the third respondent for installation of storage tanks of petroleum of Class A and Class B in the above said land.

3. Therelevant facts could briefly be stated thus:

The Territory Manager, Reliance Industries Limited, Madurai has applied for the grant of No Objection Certificate (NOC) under the provisions of the Petroleum Act and Rules for installation of storage of tanks of Petroleum Class A and B in S.No. 84/5 and 84/6A of Aloor Village, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District. The District Fire Officer and the Superintendent of Police have recommended for the issuance of “NOC”. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram has reported that the proposed land is having an extent of 0.30.5 Hec in S.Nos. 84/5 and 84/6A which stands registered in the names of Kadaksham and Sarala. The proposed site is situated in Chunkankadai at Nagercoil Trivandrum National Highways. The DRO/first respondent has inspected the site on 1.10.2005. After satisfying about the availability of sufficient space for the incoming and outgoing vehicles, the first respondent has granted the “No Objection Certificate” to the third respondent to install storage tanks with a total capacity of 1,00,000 litres (Class A with 20,000 litres and Class B with 80,000 litres) in the land measuring an extent of 0.30.5 Hec. in S.Nos. 84/5 and 84/6A of Aloor Village, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District.

4. Challenging the order of granting “NOC” to the third respondent, the Petitioner Association has filed the writ petition. The Petitioner Association is comprised of the Members, who are Dealers of Petroleum Products and also running the Petrol Bunks after getting due licence from the competent authorities. Contention of the petitioner is that the first respondent is not justified in granting “NOC” to the third respondent when there is a clear prohibition for installation of Petrol/Diesel retail outlet in the area which is less than 100 metres from the Intersection road. Another objection raised by the Petitioner Association is that the proposed land bearing S.No. 84 lies under the Agricultural Zone where the Installation of Petrol Bunk is not permissible. According to the petitioner, the objection raised before the first respondent was not considered and the first respondent has granted “NOC” without proper application of mind and hence the writ petition.

5. Thefirst respondent has filed a Counter Affidavit contending that the distance requirement is only directory and has no statutory force. Main contention of the third respondent is that the Members of the Petitioner Association are dealers in Petrol/Diesel products and are competitors in the field, who cannot raise any valid objection for grant of “NOC” to the third respondent.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the requirement of minimum distance has not been complied with. It is further submitted that the proposed site is within the Agricultural zone and the Town Planning Authority had also opined that the proposed site is not fit for location of the retail outlet and the same was not properly considered by the first respondent. It is further submitted that issuance of No Objection Certificate is in disregard of the guidelines and the same is liable to be quashed.

7. Placing reliance upon the decisions Ganesh Chandra Hazarika v. State of Assam AIR 1982 Gau. 36 an

































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top