The court emphasized the importance of observing the principles of natural justice and the statutory mandate in administrative decisions, particularly in the cancellation of licenses or certificates.

JUDGMENT :

Manish Kumar Nigam, J.

1. This writ petition is preferred against the impugned order dated 18.11.2020 passed by respondent no.3, District Magistrate, Sonbhadra, (wrongly mentioned as respondent no.4 in the prayer clause) cancelling the No Objection Certificate dated 13.10.2020. The impugned order dated 18.11.2020 is annexed as Annexure No.10 to the writ petition. Pleadings have been exchanged in the present writ petition. At the time of admission of present petition, after hearing Counsel for respondent-Corporation, Standing Counsel and Counsel for Caveater, effect and operation of the order dated 18.11.2020 passed by the District Magistrate, Sonbhadra was stayed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.1.2021.

2. Brief facts of the case are that an advertisement was issued on 25.11.2020 by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation calling applications for award of MS/HSD retail outlet dealership under open category at the location 2014 at Ghorawal Bardiyan Road, District Sonbhadra. The petitioner applied in pursuance to the aforesaid advertisement for award of MS/HSD retail outlet, participated in the selection process and was declared successful. A letter of intent was issued for the aforesaid location to the petitioner on 19.5.2020.

3. On 19.5.2020, the respondent no.2, Chief Regional Manager, Varanasi wrote a letter to the District Magistrate, Sonbhadra for issuing No Objection Certificate in respect to the Gata No. 51Ami, Village-Gavkunda, Pargana-Bardhiya, Tehsil-Ghoraval. District-Sonbhadra offered by the petitioner for constructing the retail outlet. After the letter dated 19.5.2020 written by the respondent no.2 to the respondent no.3, District Magistrate, Sonbhadra, an objection was filed online on 2.9.2020 by the respondent no.4, Shyam Bihari Dwivedi before the respondent no.3 raising certain grievances. The complaint so made by the respondent no.4 was examined and enquired by the Additional District Magistrate, Sonbhadra and he has submitted its report dated 12.10.2020 recording therein that in the Khatauni of 1426-1431 Fasli, Khata No.6, Arazi No.51Ami, Area 0.6260 hectare name of Amresh Chand, Subhash, Chand and Rohit Tiwari is recorded as Bhumidhar with transferable rights and in Khata No.2, Arazi No.51A Miljumla, Area 0.6260, name of Anil Kumar, Shyam Bihari (respondent no.4) and Avadh Bihari is recorded as Bhumidhar with transferable rights. It was further recorded that Khata No.6 is a separate Khata and in the aforesaid Khata, the new retail outlet is proposed by the petitioner. It was also recorded by the Additional District Magistrate, Sonbhadra as the respondent no.4 is not a co-tenure holder in Khata No.6 but a co-tenure holder in Khata No.2, therefore his rights are not affected. Accordingly, the complaint of respondent no.4 was rejected.

4. After completing the enquiry, the respondent no.3, District Magistrate issued a No Objection Certificate on 13.10.2020, copy of the same is annexed as Annexure No.4 to the writ petition. It appears that after grant of No Objection Certificate on 13.10.2020, the respondent No.4, Shyam Bihari again moved an application before the District Magistrate, Sonbhadra for cancellation of No Objection Certificate dated 13.10.2020 on various grounds. Copy of the complaint is annexed as Annexure No. 9 to the writ petition. After receiving the complaint of the respondent no.4, the District Magistrate, Sonbhadra re-examined the matter and cancelled the No Objection Certificate granted by him on 13.10.2020 by means of order dated 18.11.2020.

5. Being aggrieved with the order dated 18.11.2020, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. It has been contended by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the order impugned dated 18.11.2020 passed by respondent no.3 is an ex-parte order without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and, as such, the order is in violation to the principles of natural justice. It has been further sub