Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Hence, you are hereby informed to stop the work for installation of Underground Tank at R.S.N0.6/E, Brundavan Gardens.

Sd/-

For Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Guntur.

To (1) Sri V. Ramakrishna Prasad, S.V.N. Colony, Guntur.

(2) M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Executive Sales Officer, 1st Floor, Siri Apartments, 4th lane, Ashok Nagar, Guntur.

(3) Copy to the Vice-Chairman, U.D.A. for information.

18. The writ petitioner is the authorised dealer for purchase and sale of petroleum products and the 3rd respondent company in W.P. No. 34076/97 (hereinafter, in short, referred to as 'Company') entered into a Petrol Dealer agreement with the petitioner dated 1 -2-1976 appointing him as the dealer for the retail sale or supply of petroleum products. Previously, the Company had installed a Petrol Filling Station in a leasehold site in Tobacco Colony on the outskirts of Guntur town by the side of the Trunk road from Guntur to Vijayawada and the petitioner was appointed as dealer for sale and supply of petroleum products. As the lease of the site expired, the Company surrendered that site to its owner and instructed the petitioner for resitement in Guntur-ll town for installation of Petrol Filling Station since there was only one such Petrol Filling Station in Guntur-ll town while there are 23 such filling stations in Guntur-I town. The petitioner purchased 400 sq.yards of vacant site in S. No. 6/E of Nallapadu Revenue village in the year 1996 and obtained registered sale deeds on 17-6-1997. The Company got the plans prepared as per the rules framed under the relevant enactments like Petrolium Act, Explosives Act, the Municipal Corporation Act etc., and the Company submitted an application dated 22-11-1996 along with the plans to the Collector, Guntur for granting 'No Objection Certificate' for installation of the Petrol Filling Station. It is further stated that the Collector, Guntur instructed various authorities namely, the Municipal Corporation, Guntur, Revenue Divisional Officer, Mandal Revenue Officer, Superintendent of Police, District Forest Officer, District Medical and Health Officer and Chief Controller Explosives etc., to inspect and send their reports regarding desirability of granting 'No Objection Certificate' and that the said authorities inspected the site and sent reports recommending the issuance of 'No Objection Certificate' to the Company for installation of Petrol Filling Station. It is stated that as dealer, the petitioner invested about five lakhs of rupees for purchasing the site and for other expenses and another one lakh of rupees for purchasing 4000 litres of petrol as per invoice dated 18-11-1997 and the Company also invested another sum of two lakhs of rupees for installation of underground storage tank for erecting pipe line and for erecting dispensing pump. It is also stated that after issuance of 'No Objection Certificate', the Company installed an underground tank of 22,000 litres capacity of petrol and installed the petrol dispensing pump. The Company also obtained licence under the Explosives Act on 18-11-1997 and the petitioner also obtained registered certificate from Commercial Tax Department and Central Sales Tax. It is further stated that the Joint Collector, Guntur renewed the licence of storage in Form-B on 2-11-1997 for purchase, sale, storage for sale of petroleum oils from 2-11 -1997 to 31 -12-1997 and the petitioner purchased 4000 litres of petrol under invoice No. 307433 dated 18-11 -1997 for the value of Rs. 1,08,683/- which was delivered to the petitioner on the same date. It is also further stated that on 19-11-1997 the District Inspector of Legal Metrology (Weights and Measures), after inspection, issued a certificate dated 19-11-1997 itself and the petitioner started selling petrol to the customers from 19-11-1997. While so, it is stated that the first respondent and the second respondent issued the impugned proceedings referred to supra and the said impugned proceedings are questioned in the Writ Petition by raising several grounds like want of jurisdiction, want of notice, estoppel, mala fides and interference for political reasons.

FINDINGS ON REPLY TO VIOLATION No. 2:

The violation is that the VGT UDA suspended the permission accorded for the location of the Petrol Bunk on 20-11-1997 which was served on the dealer on 21 -11 -1997 and contended by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Secunderabad. Copy of the sales Register furnished by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Secunderabad shows that he did not sell petrol during the period i.e., 21-11-1997 to 23-11-1997. The H.P.C. Limited Secunderabad contended that they did not disobey the orders of the VGT UDA. In this connection, it is submitted that the VGT UDA in its Rc.E1/381/97, dated 20-11-1997 suspended the installation of the Petrol Bunk and directed the Petrol Bunk dealer to stop construction of structures in the said S. No. 6/E Brundavan Gardens, Guntur. It is not out of place to point out that the order issued by the VGT UDA suspending the permission granted by them by the VGT UDA suspending the permission granted by them would not come into force till the N.O.C. granted by the Collector is withdrawn and the Licence in Form XII granted by the Chief Controller of Explosives, Madras is cancelled. Thus the violation put forth would may not sustain. The Properiety or right of VGT UDA in suspending the permission granted by it for the installation of Petrol Bunk was not accepted by the High Court in its interim order in W.P. No. 34076/97 M.P. No. 3712/97 dated 22-12-1997. It is further submitted in this connection that the H.P.C.Limited, which obtained N.O.C. from the Collectorfor installation of Petrol Bunk, approached the Chief Controller of Explosives, Madras for grant of Licence in Form XII to Store Petroleum with Retail Outlet for the fuel in motor conveyances and was granted the said licence in Form XII in No. A.P.5044, dated 18-11-1997. The said licence generally reach the dealer the next i.e., on 19-11-1997 even supposing he brings the licence from Madras to Guntur. But the dealer in his haste and over anxiety purchased petrol from H.P.C., Vijayawada meant for Vijaya Oil Company, Mangalagiri Road, Guntur and dumped it in his Vijaya Oil Company Petrol Bunk in Brundavangardens, Guntur. This goes to say that the purchase of 4,000 litres petrol from HPC on 18-11-1997 itself i.e., the date of grant of licence at Madras, is not covered by valid licence to be displayed at the Petrol Bunk i.e., Brundavan Gradens, Guntur. Hence, this violation is established.

Copy to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur.

Copy to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Guntur.

Copy to the Vice-Chairman, VGT UDA, Vijayawada.

Copy to the Divl.Fire Officer, Guntur. Copy to the D.M. & H.O., Guntur.

23. Several factual details are narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and a counter affidavit is filed by the first respondent. A reply affidavit is also filed again reiterating the same stand taken in the affidavit filed in the Writ Petition. It may be relevant to have a glance at the stand taken in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition by the writ petitioner. Virtually, the same factual details relating to the running of the Petrol Filling Station on a leasehold site and subsequent thereto purchasing the property as specified supra had been repeated. It is needless to say that in this Writ Petition, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited is shown as 2nd respondent (hereinafter referred as 'Company'). It is stated that after pur hasing the land, the Company made an application dated 20-1-1997 along with the necessary drawings showing the location of the proposed installation of the underground petroleum tank and other details for granting basic explosive licence under Rule 131 of the Petroleum Rules. The Chief Controller of Explosives, Chennai, Government of India issued basic licence approving the drawing by an order dated 18-3-1997 after being satisfied that the drawings are in confirmity with the provisions of the Petroleum Act and Petroleum Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' and 'Rules') and directed the Company to forward certain other documents such as the pressure test and safety certificate in the prescribed proforma as required under Rules 126 and 130 and a 'No Objection Certificate' under Rule 133 of the Rules in original from the District authorities together with a copy of the site plan attested by him as soon as the approved works are completed for purpose of granting a licence under Rule 141 of Petroleum Rules. It is also stated that the Company made an application to the Collector along with 8 sets of drawing etc., for granting 'No Objection Certificate' for installation of underground tank of 22,000 litres for Class 'B' storage petrol. It is further stated that the District Revenue Officer, Guntur under the delegated powers of the Collector asked the inspection reports of various departments such as Medical and Health Department, Revenue Department, District Forest Officer, Superintendent of Police, Commissioner of Municipal Corporation etc., and all the officials of the said departments inspected the site and verified whether the location of the proposed installation of underground petroleum tank etc., are in confirmity with the drawings and other rules. It is also further stated that after being satisfying that the proposed installation of tank is in confirmity with the rules, they sent reports stating that there is no objection for granting 'No Objection Certificate' and after considering the said reports, the District Revenue Officer granted 'No Objection Certificate' in his proceedings D.Dis. No. 2538/96-06 dated 28-10-1997 to the 2nd respondent for installation of underground petroleum tank subject to the conditions of taking Fire prevention and fire protection measures mentioned in the 'No Objection Certificate'. It is also stated that the Company has installed the underground petroleum tank after fulfilling all the conditions mentioned in the 'No Objection Certificate' and the relevant rules. It is stated that 'No Objection Certificate' was issued after fully complying with all the relevant rules and the same is perfectly legal and valid. It is also stated that after sending the 'No Objection Certificate' along with the pressure test and safety certificate no doubt other documents, the Chief Controller of Explosives, South Circle, Chennai, has issued licence No. A.P.5044 dated 18-11 -1997 for storage of 22,000 K.L. of petrol and for sale and that from 19-11-1997, the petitioner began sale of petroleum through the outlet. It is further stated that the petitioner received an order dated 20-11-1997 passed by VUDA suspending the permission granted by it through a messenger on 20-11-1997 and received the copy of the same officially on 28-11-1997 through the Municipal Corporation, Guntur. It is also further stated that after issuing 'No Objection Certificate', neither VGT-UDA nor the District Revenue Officer nor the Collector nor the other officials from whom he obtained the necessary certificates have any power to cancel the 'No Objection Certificate' or the inspection reports. It is also stated that the order of District Revenue Officer, Guntur dated 28-10-1997 granting the 'No Objection Certificate' has become final and no appeal was preferred against it and there is no power of review to cancel the 'No Objection Certificate' or the other reports. It is also further stated that the Collector has got the power to cancel the 'No Objection Certificate' under Rule 151 only if the Collector is satisfied that the c has caused to have a right to use the site for storing petroleum. It is also further stated that while so, one Bhavanam Govinda Reddy and two others filed W.P. No. 31019/97 for issuing a Writ of Mandamus declaring the 'No Objection Certificate' issued by the District Revenue Officer, Guntur in D.Dis. No. 2538/96-C6 dated 28-10-1997 as arbitrary, illegal, against public interest and consequently to set aside the same contending that they have got a right to make representations and accordingly they made representations dated 17-11-1997, 18-11-1997 and 20-11-1997 before the Collector which were of the considered by him. It is stated that the objectors have no right under the Act and Rules to file objection petitions. It is also stated that though the petitioner was impleaded as 3rd in the said Writ Petition, the Writ Petition was finally disposed of by an order dated 24-11 -1997 at the stage of admission and without notice to the petitioner directing the Collector, Guntur to consider the representation petitions made by the petitioners in accordance with law and after giving notice to the Company. It is also stated that the said order which affects the petitioner's rights and without notice to the petitioner is not binding upon the petitioner. It is further stated that the then Collector, Guntur heard the arguments of both sides and posted the matter to 24-10-1998 at 4.45 p.m. for Judgment and issued a notice dated 18-10-1998 directing the parties to appear before him on 24-10-1998 at 4.45 p.m., without fail to receive the Judgment. It is also further stated that on the other hand, the present Collector who is the 1st respondent herein issued the impugned show cause notice dated 22-1-1999 which was received by the petitioner on 30-1-1999. It is also stated that the petitioner raised several irrelevant and baseless objections/grounds in the show cause notice for cancellation of the 'No Objection Certificate' which are beyond the scope of enquiry directed by the High Court in its order dated 24-11-1997 in W.P. No. 31019/97. It is further stated that ground Nos.1 to 4 mentioned in the 2nd page of show cause notice were framed on the basis of the three representation petitions and on the basis of objections raised by the Advocate who appeared for the objectors and additional grounds 1 to 5 mentioned at pages 3 to 4 of the show cause notice were framed on the basis of the personal inspection of the site in S. No. 6/E, Brundavan Gardens alleged to have been made by the previous Collector on 5-12-1998. It is stated that the previous Collector did not give any notice of the alleged personal inspection dated 5-12-1998 to the petitioner and to the knowledge of the petitioner, no such inspection was made. It is also stated that the Collector has no jurisdiction or power to frame or enquire into the additional grounds mentioned in the show cause notice except to consider the grounds 1 to 4 mentioned in the three objections petitions dated 17-11-1997, 18-11-1997 and 20-11-1997 in accordance with law as per directions of High Court dated 24-11 -1997 in W.P. No. 31019/97. It is further stated that so the additional grounds 1 to 5 mentioned in the impugned Show cause notice are beyond the scope of enquiry directed by the High Court and the Collector has no jurisdiction to frame or enquire into the said grounds. Further it was stated that the petitioner filed W.P. No. 4006/97 challenging the validity of the show cause notice dated 22-1-1999 marked as Ex.P-2 contending that the Collector who is exercising quasi judicial power under the petroleum Act and rules has no power to review his own order granting the 'No Objection Certificate', that the additional grounds violation of objections mentioned in the show cause notice are beyond the scope of objections raised by the objections and directed to the enquired by the High Court in W.P. No. 31019/97 by its order dated 24-11 -1997 and the 1st respondent should have dropped the proceedings since they are not maintainable under law as the High Court directed him to consider the objections according to law i.e., Petroleum Act and the Rules and since there is no violation of the provisions of the Act and Rules. It is also further stated that the said Writ Petition was withdrawn on 1 -3-99 at the stage of admission in view of the observations made by His Lordship Justice S.R.Naik that the High Court will not interfere at the stage of show cause notice except in the rarest of rate cases and this is not one such case. It is further stated that the petitioner and the Company submitted detailed explanations to the show cause notice stating that the first respondent has no power to review his earlier order dated 28-10-1997, that the additional charges framed by the 1st respondent are beyond the scope of the directions given by the High Court in W.P. No. 31019/97, that the other charges framed on the basis of representation petitions and the arguments of their Counsel Sri Sanjeeva Reddy cannot be entertained as they do not amount to any violations of the provisions of Petroleum Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It is also further stated that the petitioner also stated in his explanation marked as Ex.P.3 that in view of the written statement filed by District Revenue Officer marked as Ex.P.4 and adopted by Collector in O.S. No. 642/97 on the file of the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur filed by some of the objectors for cancellation of the 'No Objection Certificate' stating that the suit is not maintainable in law since the 'No Objection Certificate' was issued after enquiry and on the basis of the reports of (1) Revenue Divisional Officer, (2) the Superintendent of Police, Guntur, (3) District Medical Health Officer, Guntur (4) Divisional Fire Officer, Guntur and (5) Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Guntur recommending for issue of 'No Objection Certificate' dated 28-10-1997 installation of underground tank to store petroleum in the vacant land bearing S.N0.6/E of Brundavan Gardens, Guntur. It is further stated that the 'No Objection Certificate' granted under Rule 144 shall not be cancelled except under Rule 151 unless the competent authority is satisfied that the licencee has ceased to have any right to use the site for storing petroleum. It is also further stated that there is no powers of review to cancel the licence. It is also stated that when the High Court directed the Collector to consider the objections and pass orders according to law, the Collector should have simply said that he has no power of review and no change of circumstances as contemplated under Rule 151 to cancel the 'No Objection Certificate'. But however it is stated that the first respondent had wrongly assumed jurisdiction and entertained the objections and he had extracted in the impugned order only four violations or objections raised by Sri A.Sanjeeva Reddy appearing for the objectors but did not refer to the additional grounds of violations mentioned in the show cause notice. It is also stated that none of the four grounds of violations referred to in the impugned order do amount to any violation of any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules. It is further stated that the first respondent did not consider and give any finding in respect of objections 2, 3 and 4 since he must have felt that they are absolutely irrelevant for consideration. It is also further stated that the first respondent considered only No. 1 which is extracted hereunder: did not consider and give any finding in respect of objections 2, 3 and 4 since he must have felt that they are absolutely irrelevant for consideration. It is also further stated that the first respondent considered only No. 1 which is extracted hereunder:

(2) Every certificate issued by the District Authority under Sub-rule (1) shall be accompanied by a copy of the plan of the proposed site duly endorsed by him under his official seal.

(3) The Chief Controller or the Controller of Explosives as the case may be may refer an application not accompanied by a certificate granted under Sub-rule (1) to the District authority for his observations.

(4) If the District Authority, either on a reference being made to him or otherwise, intimates to the Chief Controller or the Controller of Explosives, as the case may be, that any licence which has been applied for should not, in his opinion, be granted such licence shall not be issued without the sanction of the Central Government.