Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 9195
Reserved on : 24.03.2025 Pronounced on : 29.04.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.33877 OF 2024 (GM - RES)
C/W WRIT PETITION No.1719 OF 2025 (GM - RES)
IN WRIT PETITION No.33877 OF 2024 BETWEEN:
SMT.N.PADMAVATHAMMA W/O.LATE CHIDANANDAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, NAYAKANAHATTI, CHITRADURGA – 577 536.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI H.KANTHARAJ, SR.ADVOCATE A/W SRI H.K.RAVI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA – 577 501.
2 . MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED A SUBSIDIARY OF OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED (GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING KUTHETHUR P.O., VILA KATIPALLA MANGALURU – 575 030 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3. RAVIKUMAR J.R., S/O P.M.RAJASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT NAYAKANAHATTY CHALLAKERE (TQ)
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 536.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R-1;
SRI RAYAPPA Y.HADAGALI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
SRI A.C.BALARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ‘NO OBJECTIONS’ CERTIFICATE BEARING NO. EXL:CR-475637/2024-25 DTD. 30.11.2024 VIDE ANNX-A ISSUED BY THE R-1 BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI.
IN WRIT PETITION No.1719 OF 2025 BETWEEN:
THIPPESWAMY T., S/O SANNA THIPPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT NAYAKANAHATTY, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA – 577 536 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT:
NO.52/2, 1 ST FLOOR, CHINNASWAMY REDDY BUILDING, BHAVANI ROAD, HEBBAGODI, BENGALURU – 560 099.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI H.KANTHARAJ, SR.ADVOCATE A/W SRI H.K.RAVI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA – 577 501.
2 . MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED, A SUBSIDIARY OF OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED, (GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING)
KUTHETHUR P.O., VILA KATIPALLA, MANGALURU – 575 030.
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R-1;
SRI RAYAPPA Y.HADAGALI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
SRI A.C.BALARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ‘NO OBJECTIONS CERTIFICATE’ BEARING NO. EXL.CR-475637/2024-25 DTD. 30.11.2024 VIDE ANNX-A ISSUED BY THE R-1 BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 24.03.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
The court ruled that family members of a rival operator lack standing to challenge the issuance of a No Objection Certificate, affirming compliance with natural justice principles.
Headnote:(A) Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - No Objection Certificate - Petitioners challenge the issuance of a No Objection Certificate for a new petroleum unit, alleging violation of natural justice due to insufficient notice to file objections - Court finds that the Deputy Commissioner acted within legal parameters, and the petitions lack merit. (Paras 3-10)
(B) Natural Justice - The principles of natural justice were considered, particularly regarding the opportunity to file objections - Court finds no violation as the required distance from existing outlets was maintained, and the Deputy Commissioner's decision was backed by inspections and recommendations. (Paras 4-10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenge a No Objection Certificate issued for a new petroleum unit, claiming inadequate opportunity to object and proximity to an existing outlet. (Paras 3-5)
Findings of Court:
The Deputy Commissioner’s decision was found to comply with legal standards, and the objections raised were deemed insufficient. (Paras 6-10)
Issues: Whether the petitioners had the locus standi to challenge the No Objection Certificate on the grounds of proximity to another outlet and lack of opportunity to file objections. (Paras 4-10)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the petitioners, as family members of a rival operator, lacked standing to contest the issuance of the No Objection Certificate, and that the Deputy Commissioner’s actions were justified and lawful. (Paras 6-10)
Result: Petitions dismissed.
CAV ORDER
The petitioners, in both these cases, call in question a ‘No Objection Certificate’ issued on 30-11-2024 by the 1st respondent/Deputy Commissioner for setting up a petroleum unit in the place allotted.
2. Heard Sri H Kantharaj, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Mohammed Jaffar Shah, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 and Sri Rayappa Hadagali, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, in both the cases and Sri A C Balaraj, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 in W.P.No.33877 of 2024 and for impleading applicant in W.P.No.1719 of 2025.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-
The petitioner in W.P.No.33877 of 2024 is a holder of licence and running a petroleum unit in Sy.No.499, Khatha No.572 of Nayakanahatti Village, Challakere Taluk. The 2nd respondent/Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited invites applications for the purpose of setting up of a petroleum unit in Sy. No. 212/5 measuring 25 guntas in Nayakanahatti Village, Nayakanahatti Hobli, Challakere Taluk. The 1st respondent/ Deputy Commissioner was called upon to inspect the property and give his no objection or nod for setting up of the petroleum unit therein. The Chief Officer of the Town Panchayat on 26-09-2024, in furtherance of the aforesaid requirement, issues a public notice on 20-11-2024 calling for objections from the stake holders. The petitioner in W.P.No.33877 of 2024 claims that due to her old age she did not file her objections, but her nephew submitted the objections and requested not to allot/issue licence for the proposed petrol or diesel unit. On 30-11-2024 no objections is issued by the 1st respondent as sought by the 2nd respondent to set up a petroleum unit. Initially, Writ Petition No.33877 of 2024 was preferred on 10-12-2024 and later, on 17-01-2025 springs the companion petition, all by family members of the person who is presently running the petroleum outlet.
4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that there was no reasonable opportunity to any person to file the objections, as paper publication with regard to objections comes about on 20-11-2024. 15 days’ time was given, but no objection is given by the 1st respondent within 10 days i.e. on 30-11-2024. Therefore, it is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The other submission is that, petroleum unit now sought to be established, is within the distance of 300 meters from a nearby retail outlet. Therefore, it was objected to. The objections were not filed by the person who was holding licence, but by the family member.
5. Per-contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would submit a threshold bar of maintenance of the petition. It is his submission that the petitioners are the family members of a person who is running a petroleum outlet nearby. Therefore, he is a rival operator. A rival operator in law has no locus to challenge on the ground that nearby another unit is coming and that his business would go away. Insofar as 300 meters contention is concerned, the learned counsel would take this Court through the recommendation of the Tahsildar, which clearly holds that the proposed unit is 380 meters away.
6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners would now join issue in contending that the Apex Court in identical circumstances in the case of INDIAN OIL CORPORATION v. V.B.R. MENON , [1(2023) 7 SCC 368] has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
Consent to establish and consent to operate
43. What is “consent to establish” (CTE) and what is “consent to operate” (CTO)? Consent to establish (CTE) means the prior permission of the Pollution Control Board to begin the work of construction of petrol retailing outlet at any place. At this stage, the groundwater level in the proposed site, nature of the groundwater, its corrosive properties, availability of residential premises, schools, probable danger to environment from the proposed outlet, etc.
