Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

WP/6923/2016 & ANR

13. Respondent No.5 in this matter is a cooperative society, which is already in liquidation. Shri Karpe, learned Advocate has strenuously contended that since the said society is operating the petrol pump in the property at issue, certain civil rights under the law of contract have accrued to respondent No.5. The dispute would not halt at the end of respondent No.4 / HPCL. Respondent No.5 has an interest in the said dispute and hence has rightly preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. HPCL had also preferred an identical appeal and the appellate authority has therefore, concluded that the Collector had committed an error in withdrawing the NOC. He further submits that that neither the Collector nor the appellate authority have any reason to go into the aspect as to who has the right, title or interest in the property at issue since it is beyond their jurisdiction. He, therefore, prays that this petition be dismissed with heavy costs.

15. It is stated by the learned Advocate that respondent No.4 / HPCL was paying the rent through the petitioner to the original plaintiff by depositing the said amount in the trial Court. After the suit has been dismissed in default and since the petitioner is not accepting the rent, HPCL is no longer paying the rent of the property at issue, though the property is in it's possession.

16. I find that the issue as to what are the factors that are to be taken into consideration by the Collector, while sustaining the NOC is no longer res integra in the light of the observations of the Honourable Supreme Court in paragraph Nos.43 and 44 of the judgment in he case of C. Albert Morris (supra). It would be apposite to reproduce the said conclusions hereunder:-

18. The Honourable Apex Court further held that the District Collector was unconcerned as regards the ownership or title of the property at issue. He is not empowered to consider as to who is the actual owner of the property. If the lease agreement between the lessee and the landlord is not continued or is not extended, the lessee would lose the right to the site and would not be entitled to hold the site unless the license is renewed.

19. In the Baba and Company's case (supra), HPCL was a respondent in the proceeding. It was canvassed that as the NOC was granted by the Collector, HPCL would have a right to store petroleum products in the said premises. Rule 154 of the said Rules were taken into account. Rule 154 reads as under:-

(2) A District Authority or a State Government cancelling a no-objection certificate shall record, in writing, the reasons for such cancellation and shall immediately furnish to the licensee and to the licensing authority concerned, copy of the order cancelling the no-objection certificate."

21. To a pertinent query posed to the learned counsel for HPCL and respondent No.5 Society, as to whether HPCL can be said to have a right to use the site for storing petroleum products without any lease agreement, the learned counsel in fairness have stated that the law may not justify or recognize such a use.