http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: YOGESH KUMAR AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD. AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT10/08/1990

BENCH: KANIA, M.H. BENCH: KANIA, M.H. KULDIP SINGH (J)

CITATION:  1990 AIR 2216            1990 SCC  (4)  49  JT 1990   529            1990 SCALE  278

ACT:     Petroleum  Rules,  1976: Rule. 151--Cancellation  of  No Objection  Certificate  granted under Rule 144  for  running petrol pump--Interpretation of rule--Clarification of.

HEADNOTE:     The No Objection Certificate granted to Respondent No. 1 Corporation  under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules 1976  for running a petrol pump set up by it on a lease hold site  was cancelled by respondent No. 5, the District Magistrate under Rule 151 of the Rules. This order was upheld by the  Commis- sioner,  but  was set aside by the High  Court,  on  appeal. Hence  the special leave petition against the  High  Court’s order. Dismissing the special leave petition, this Court,     HELD:  The  High  Court was right in  holding  that  the District  Authority under Rule 151 of the  Petroleum  Rules, 1976  can cancel the No Objection Certificate only when  the licensee ceases to have any right to use the site for  stor- ing petrol. However, certain subsequent observations made by the  High Court in the judgment might lead to  an  inference that  so  long as the licensee continues to  have  leasehold rights on the site, the ’No Objection Certificate’ cannot be cancelled  at all. That is not the correct position in  law. [738B-C]     On a reading of sub-rule (1) of the Rule 151 it is clear that a ’No Objection Certificate’ granted under Rule 144 can be cancelled wherever the licensee ceases to have any  right to  use the site for storing petrol and that right could  be lost by a licensee either by his tenancy or right to the use of the site coming to an end or for any other reason  where- by,  in  law, the right to use the site for  storing  petrol ceases. [738C-D]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Special  Leave  Petition (Civil) No. 5775 of 1990.     From  the  Judgment and Order dated  30.11.1989  of  the Allahabad High Court in C. Misc. W.P. No. 2431 of 1989. 737

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

Dr. L.M. Singhvi and Pramod Dayal for the Petitioners.     T.S.  Krishnamoorthy  lyer and D.M.  Nargolkar  for  the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered     On the facts and circumstances of the case including the facts set out in the counter affidavit filed by R.B. Sahi we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Allahabad High Court.     Very  briefly stated respondent No. 1 is the owner of  a Petrol Pump which is set up on a site in Dehradun, of  which respondent  No. 1 is the lessee. The ’No Objection  Certifi- cate’  granted for conducting the said Petrol Pump.was  can- celled  by  respondent  No. 5, the  District  Magistiate  of Dehradun, and that order was upheld by the Commissioner. The Division  Bench of the Allahabad High Court by the  impugned judgment  set aside the order of the Commissioner. The  spe- cial leave petition is directed against the said order as we have already observed we see no reason to interfere with the actual order passed by the Division Bench but we would  like to make a clarification regarding the interpretation of Rule 151 of the Rules framed in 1976 under the Petroleum Act.     Rule 144 of the said Rules deals with the issue of a ’No Objection  Certificate’  for  a new license  for  running  a Petrol Pump. Rule 151 deals with the cancellation of the ’No Objection Certificate’ and the said rule reads as follows:   (1)  "A  no objection certificate granted under  Rule  144 shall be liable to be cancelled by the District Authority or the State Government, if the District Authority or the State Government  is  satisfied, that the licensee has  ceased  to have any right to use the site for storing petrol;  Provided that  before  cancelling  a no  objection  certificate,  the licensee  shall be given a reasonable opportunity  of  being heard.   (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 licen- 738         see and to the licensing authority concerned a  copy of the order cancelling the no objection certificate."     The  High Court has rightly observed that  the  District Authority under Rule 151 can cancel the No Objection Certif- icate only when the licensee ceases to have any fight to use the  site  for storing petrol. However,  there  are  certain subsequent  observations made by the High Court in  the  im- pugned  judgment  which might lead to an inference  that  so long as the licensee continues to have lease-hold rights  on the site, the ’No Objection Certificate’ cannot be cancelled at  all. That does not appear to be the correct position  in law.  On a reading of sub-rule (1) of Rule 151 it  is  clear that a ’No Objection Certificate’ granted under Rule 144 can be cancelled wherever the licensee ceases to have any  right to  use the site for storing petrol and that right could  be lost by a licensee either by his tenancy or right to the use of the site coming to an end or for any other reason  where- by,  in  law, the right to use the site for  storing  petrol ceases.     In  view  of the clarification which we have  made,  Dr. Singhvi,  learned counsel for the petitioner states that  he does  not  wish  to press the petition.  The  Special  Leave petition is, therefore, dismissed. N.P.V.                                              Petition dismissed. 739

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3