O R D E R

This case falls within a narrow compass. The petitioner is a dealer of petroleum products, and has obtained a licence from the fifth respondent to run its bunk. For the said purpose, the petitioner entered into a lease agreement with the sixth respondent. The petitioner complied with all necessary norms of obtaining the licence, and accordingly, the licence was also granted. However, when she came to establish the petrol bunk, the petitioner chose not to utilise the land that she obtained in lease from the sixth respondent, but established outside the property leased, which also belonged to the sixth respondent. This is not in dispute. Now according to the petitioner, at the instance of her landlord (the sixth respondent), the first respondent herein had withdrawn the NOC, consequent to which, the fifth respondent had cancelled the licence. Challenging the order withdrawing the NOC by the first respondent, the petitioner is now before this Court.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that the petrol bunk was not put up within the property leased to her, but on the adjacent property. But added that she was running the petrol bunk for close to seven years