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

1996 Supreme(Ori) 83

High Court Of Orissa
ARIJIT PASAYAT, D. MISRA
DILIP KUMAR PRUSTI - Appellant
Versus
COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SAMBALPUR - Respondent
O. J. C.  6382  Of  1995
Decided On : 05/15/1996

Advocates Appeared:
A.K.Mishra, B.N.MAHANTY, B.R.DAS, B.S.TRIPATHY, D.CHATTERJI, K.P.Mishra, M.Kar Bhowmik, M.SARKAR, P.C.BISVAL, R.K.PATNAIK, S.K.BERI, S.K.MISHRA, S.P.Misra, Y.MOHANTY

The grant of 'No Objection Certificate' for the installation of a retail outlet under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 1975 must be in accordance with the norms prescribed by the Oil Companies.

Headnote:

PETROLEUM RULES, 1975 - R. 144 - GRANT OF 'NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE' - CONDITIONS - RESITEMENT OF RETAIL OUTLET - NORMS - INTERPRETATION - LOCUS STANDI OF DEALER TO CHALLENGE GRANT OF CERTIFICATE - VALIDITY.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a physically handicapped person operating a retail outlet dealership, challenged the grant of 'No Objection Certificate' by the Additional District Magistrate to the opposite party No. 4 for installing a high-speed diesel filling station on the ground that it was done in violation of the norms of the Oil Industry and the Petroleum Rules, 1975.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the petitioner had the locus standi to challenge the grant of 'No Objection Certificate' as he was substantially affected by the resitement of the opposite party No. 4's outlet and that the grant of the certificate was in contravention of the norms prescribed by the Oil Companies.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had the locus standi to challenge the grant of 'No Objection Certificate'? 2. Whether the grant of 'No Objection Certificate' was in contravention of the norms prescribed by the Oil Companies?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petitioner had the locus standi to challenge the grant of 'No Objection Certificate' as he was substantially affected by the resitement of the opposite party No. 4's outlet. 2. The Court held that the grant of 'No Objection Certificate' was in contravention of the norms prescribed by the Oil Companies as the resitement was within the 'd' Class market, which was not permissible.

Final Decision: The Court quashed the order granting 'No Objection Certificate' and remanded the matter to the Competent Authority, the Additional District Magistrate to dispose of the application, keeping in view the observations made and directions given above.

DIPAK MISRA, J.

( 1 ) JUSTIFIABILITY of the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Sambalpur, the O. P. No. 3, granting ' No Objection Certificate' in pursuance of the provisions contained in R. 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Rules') in favour of opposite party No. 4, is called in question, in the present writ application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, a physically handicapped person operating a retail outlet dealership being conferred such privilege by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, one of the prime Oil Companies of the Country.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to petitioner, the facts giving rise to the Writ application, sans unnecessary detail, are as follows : The petitioner is a licensee to deal with high speed diesel and has installed his retail outlet over plot No. 1660 / 3789 of village A. Kantapalli at Gosala, in the district of Sambalpur and the said retail outlet is known as M / s. Kalinga Fuels. It is situated on National High Way No. 6 under Burla Police Station. The opposite party No. 3, the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. , through its representative filed an application before the Additional District Magistrate, Sambalpur for grant of ' No Objection Certificate' for installing a high speed diesel filling station over plot No. 1615 at A. Kantapalli as such installation was necessary by way of resitement of a retail outlet belonging to the dealer M/s. Fateh Chand Banka of Medipada, Sambalpur (opposite party No. 4) on the ground of viability. Petitioner felt aggrieved by such resitement in favour of opposite party No. 4, by the opposite party No. 3, the Oil Company, as according to him, it was done in violation of norms of Oil Industry, and the grant of 'no Objection Certificate' by the Additional District Magistrate was contrary to the norms and Rules, he filed an objection before the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Sambalpur indicating, inter alia, that the grounds for resitement were unjustified and the outlet of opposite party No. 4 situates within the 'c' class market i. e. Sambalpur town and the same cannot be brought on resitement to the place sought for as the new place comes within the 'd' class market, wherein outlet of the petitioner is in existence. Apart from this, numerous allegations were made touching the decision of a resitement as well as the situation on resitement on the grounds relating to aspects of distance, violative of National High Way Rules and protectability. As, ultimately, 'no Objection Certificate' has been granted without considering the objections raised by the petitioner and without affording him an opportunity, he has visited this Court challenging the decision.

( 3 ) THE opposite parties 1 and 2 have filed a return taking the stand that the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited having certified that the outlet at Modipada in the name of Fateh Chand Banka was not viable for high speed diesel sales, the challenge of the petitioner in regard to the same is untenable. They have also taken the plea that since the site plan was given by the Oil Company and authorities did not find anything objectionable, they have granted the ' No Objection Certificate'. The further stand is that in the matters of this nature dealer has no role to play. The opposite party No. 3, the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited has filed the counter affidavit refuting the stand taken by the petitioner with regard to resitement. Their main challenge is that the petitioner is a dealer of Indian Oil Corporation and the said Corporation has agreed on principle for resitement of the opposite party No. 4, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the same. That apart, their further stand is that the grant of ' No Objection Certificate' is in accordance with the Rules and there has been no violation of the norms laid down by the Oil Industry as the proposed site is not beyond 5 Kms. from Sambalpur Municipality and the












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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