The petitioner is seeking for quashing of the

order

dated

22.08.2012,

passed

by

the

Deputy

Commissioner and its affirmation in appeal by the Secretary

to the Government, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs

Department.

2.

The facts leading up to the filing of this writ

petition are that the President of the Town Municipality

granted a no-objection to install a Petrol Pump in Plot

No.1684 on 5^th of April 1953 in favour of the petitioner’s

vendor. Objections to the said no-objection was raised by

one V.S. Agadi by filing an appeal to the Collector.

3.

The Collector after inspecting the site on 26^th of

October 1953 in the presence of both the parties and also

the Executive Engineer, Raichur, concluded that the

petitioner had filed a plan to shift the Petrol Pump further

away from the road, to the extent that the Petrol Pump

: 4 :

would be installed beyond 50 feet from the center of the

road and to this the Executive Engineer, who was present

signified his no-objection.

Accordingly, the first objection raised was

overcome, according to the Collector and as regards the

second objection, the Collector had granted permission for

the erection of the Petrol Pump and thus, the appeal of V.S.

Agadi was disallowed and the petitioner’s vendor was

permitted to install a Petrol Pump.

5.

The petitioner has produced a representation

dated

10.04.1953

as

Annexure-AD

along

with

the

application to produce additional documents, in which, it is

stated that the Collector had also granted him no- objection

and the Executive Engineer, PWD had also sanctioned the

plan.

6.

Having regard to the fact that the Collector

disallowed the appeal of V.S. Agadi and clearly stated that

: 5 :

the petitioner’s vendor was permitted to erect the Petrol

Pump as per the new plan, it will have to be held that, way

back in the year 1953, the petitioner’s vendor was

permitted to install a Petrol Pump. The petitioner has also

produced an approved site plan indicating the location of

the Petrol Pump as Annexure-AE.

7.

It is the case of the petitioner that subsequently,

on 26^th of March 1982, Indian Oil Corporation (for short

“the IOC”) entered into a memorandum of agreement with

the petitioner concerned (a copy of the MOU is produced as

Annexure-B). It is submitted that thereafter on 28^th of

February 2003, another memorandum of agreement was

entered into between the IOC and the petitioner’s Firm and

thus, right from the year 1953, the petitioner and its

predecessor in interest have been running a Petrol Pump in

the land in question bearing CTS No.1684.

: 6 :

8.

It is the contention of the petitioner that as the

matter stood thus, a complaint was lodged by the

Superintendent of Police on 09.11.2010 to the Deputy

Commissioner requesting for the Petrol Pump being run by

the petitioner, to be shifted to a different place. The

Superintendent of Police in his complaint stated that there

was a piling up of vehicles abutting the Petrol Pump and

this was causing a traffic jam and causing an impediment to

the free flow of traffic. It was also stated that there were

several accidents taking place at the spot, causing harm to

life and property and therefore the Petrol Pump was

required to be shifted.

9.

The Deputy Commissioner, thereafter, proceeded

to call for a report from the Tahsildar and the Tahsildar

appears to have submitted a report dated 21.11.2011. In

this report, it appears that the Tahsildar had called upon

the petitioner to produce certain documents and since those

documents were not produced, he was issuing a show cause

: 7 :

notice under Rule 150 as to why the no-objection certificate

should not be cancelled.

10.

To the said show cause notice, the petitioner

gave a representation, dated 19.07.2012. Along with the

representation, several documents including the lease deed,

sale deed, approved plan and mutation extracts were

produced. The Deputy Commissioner, however, proceeded

to direct the shifting of the Petrol Pump forthwith and also

proceeded to hold that