Shyamapada Dey, son of late Vishwanath Dey, resident of Baliapur v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad cum District Arms Magistrate
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 298 of 2016 Shyamapada Dey, son of late Vishwanath Dey, resident of Baliapur, Petitioner P.O. and P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanbad … … Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad cum District Arms Magistrate, Dhanbad, P.O. and P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad 3. M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (A Government of India Enterprises) through Territory Manager (Retail), Ranchi having its office at Nile Complex, Kanta Toli, Old. H.B. Road, P.O. and P.S. … Respondents Chutia, District Ranchi … CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
petitioner had earlier moved before this court in W.P.(C) No. 3036 of 2013 against the letter dated 30.01.2013 wherein no objection for setting up the petrol pump was denied by the learned Deputy
Arguments
--- : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate : Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, Advocate : Mr. Suresh Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, Advocate : Mr. Anshuman, Advocate --- 08/21.02.2023 Heard Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner along with Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, Advocate. 2. Heard Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 3. Heard Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3. 4. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- for quashing of “That in the instant writ application, the petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ, writs, order, orders direction, directions the order dated 07.12.2015 passed by respondent No.2, which was communicated vide order dated 17.12.2015 as contained in Memo No. .4222, whereby respondent No.2 has rejected prayer for issuance of grant of "No Objection Certificate” required for the purpose of opening a retail outlet of Petroleum Product under the dealership of the respondent No.3 on the land purchased by the father of the petitioner vide registered deed dated 13.05.1970 and same land was leased out to the petitioner vide deed of lease dated 25.11.2011. And Further writ, writs, order, orders, direction, directions to the concerned respondent No.3 not to take any coercive steps or to cancel the letter of intent (LOI) which the respondent No.3 have issued in favour of the petitioner.” 2 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
Decision
Commissioner. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 06.05.2015 permitting the petitioner to approach the Deputy Commissioner by filing an application seeking recall of the communication dated 30.01.2013 and it was also observed that if the petitioner makes such an application, the Deputy Commissioner shall afford an opportunity of hearing and thereafter shall take a decision in the matter in accordance with law. 6. Learned counsel submits that fresh order has been passed and as per the impugned order, the learned Deputy Commissioner while considering the application for ‘no objection certificate’ has entered into the legality and validity of the transfer of concerned land by stating that the transfer itself was in violation of the provision of Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. The learned counsel submits that the Deputy Commissioner was not exercising any power under the provisions of Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act and there was no occasion for the Deputy Commissioner to enter into such enquiry regarding the legality and validity of the right, title, interest /possession of the petitioner with regards to the land on which the pump was to be set- up. He has also referred to the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case reported in (2006) 1 SCC 228 (C. Albert Morris versus K. Chandrasekaran and others) and has referred to paragraph No. 44 of the said judgment to submit that it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that while granting NOC, the Collector should be not be concerned about the ownership of the land. He is concern about the location of the land and suitability as a place for storage of petroleum. Rule 144 which deals with grant of NOC does not contemplate an enquiry into the ownership of the land nor does it require the collector to enquire into the nature of right claimed by the person who had applied for NOC. The learned counsel submits that the scope of enquiry is limited to the aforesaid extent as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore the impugned order by which the learned Deputy Commissioner has entered into the title 3 dispute to deny ‘no objection certificate’ is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the impugned order does not call for any interference. He has further submitted that in case this court is inclined to set aside the impugned order on the ground as raised by the petitioner, then a fresh enquiry is required for the suitability etc. of the premises in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in terms of other provisions of law. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3 has submitted that he does not have much to say in the matter but no objection certificate is required from the Deputy Commissioner in terms of the relevant rules governing the supply and distribution of petroleum. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this court finds that while granting no objection certificate the learned Deputy Commissioner was not exercising any power under the provisions of Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. In view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as relied upon by the petitioner reported in (2006) 1 SCC 228 it has been clearly held that while granting NOC the Collector is not concerned about the ownership of the land. He is concerned about the location of the land and its suitability as a place for storage of petroleum. It has also been held that Rule 144 which deals with grant of NOC does not contemplate an enquiry into the ownership of the land nor does it require the collector to enquire into the nature of the right claimed by the persons who had applied for NOC. This court is of the considered view that scope of enquiry of the learned Deputy Commissioner was only to the aforesaid extent and no more. Accordingly, the impugned order denying NOC to the petitioner on the ground raised regarding dispute of title of the concerned land is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is set aside. 10. The matter is remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner to examine the grant of NOC in the light of the aforesaid observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said judgment and also taking into consideration the provision of law relating to grant of no 4 objection certificate in order to set up a petrol pump. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 shall appear before the Respondent No. 2 on 11.04.2023 along with a detailed representation along with a copy of this order and the writ records. The application for no objection is directed to be disposed of by a reasoned order after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the Respondent no.3 within a period of 1 month in the light of the aforesaid observation and in accordance with law. The Respondent No. 2 shall follow the applicable rules and if required he may take the assistance of the respondent No. 3. The reasoned order be communicated to the petitioner as well as respondent no.3 through speed post at the address to be provided by the petitioner in the representation itself. 11. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Binit (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)