Magistrate, Ajmer, Rajasthan v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited

Judgment

1. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (A Government Of India Enterprise) Registered Office 17, Jamshedji Tata Road Mumbai (Maharashtra) through its Chief Regional Manager and Duly Constituted Attorney, Regional Office 50, Saheli Nagar, New Polo Ground, Udaipur Rajasthan The Court of Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer National Highway Authority Of India Through General Manager, Coridoor Management Division G-5 And G, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110045

3. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. V.D. Gathala, AGC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nareshwar Singh Shaktawat for Ms. Sukriti Kasliwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL 03/10/2025 Order This writ petition is filed assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 21.03.2006 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer whereby, while allowing the appeal preferred by the respondent no.1-HPCL (for brevity, ‘HPCL’), the order dated

19.10.2005 passed by the District Magistrate, Ajmer cancelling the No Objection Certificate (for brevity, ‘NOC’) granted to establish a retail outlet on the subject land, was set aside. The relevant facts in brief are that the HPCL, through its Senior Regional Manager, applied with the District Collector and [2025:RJ-JP:40173] (2 of 4) [CW-6132/2006] District Magistrate, Ajmer (for brevity, ‘District Collector’) seeking no objection to establish a MS/HSD retail outlet on a part of the land of Khasra No.817/1, Village Bara Patthar, Tehsil Nasirabad, District Ajmer. After obtaining NOC from all the concerned departments/authorities, the District Collector issued the NOC dated 27.03.2002 in favour of the applicant for establishment of the retail outlet subject to approval by the Chief Controller Explosive Department. However, the said NOC was withdrawn by the District Collector vide order dated 19.10.2005 on the premise that approval of the site plan was not obtained from the National Highway Authority of India (for brevity, ‘NHAI’). In the appeal preferred thereagainst by the HPCL, the Divisional Commissioner has set aside the same vide order impugned dated 21.03.2006. A perusal of the order dated 21.03.2006 reveals that after examining the provisions of Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 (for brevity, ‘Rules of 2002’) dealing with the issuance of No Objection Certificate by the District Authority for establishment of a retail outlet, it was held that the same did not require approval of the site plan by the NHAI as a condition precedent for the issuance of the NOC. Dealing with the provisions of Rule 150 of the Rules of 2002 pertaining to cancellation of the NOC, it was held that the NOC once granted could not be cancelled on the imaginary ground of non-approval of the site plan by the NHAI. It was further held by the appellate authority that the approval of the site plan was sought pursuant to guidelines and directions of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH); but, since the NOC was issued way back on 27.03.2002, the guidelines/instructions issued subsequent thereto do not apply. [2025:RJ-JP:40173] (3 of 4) [CW-6132/2006] The appellate authority further held that the Joint Chief Explosive Controller has, in response to the letter dated 12.05.2005 written by the District Collector, advised him to act in accordance with the provisions of Rules 144, 149 and 150 of the Rules of 2002 wherein, there was no requirement of approval of the plan by the NHAI. It is observed in the order impugned dated 21.03.2006 that although, approval of the site plan was not required under the Rules of 2002; still, the HPCL submitted the site plan before the Project Director, NHAI, PIU Kishangarh which was forwarded by the Project Director alongwith his recommendation dated

18.02.2002 to the Head Office of NHAI at New Delhi which, pointed out certain defects which were rectified by the HPCL; but, the NHAI kept the matter pending on one pretext or another from the year 2002 till July 2005 and as such, action of the NHAI against a Public Sector Enterprise could not be reckoned as ‘fair’. Recourse was also taken to the letter dated 06.12.2001 issued by the Superintending Engineer, PWD, Jaipur wherein, the site plan submitted by the HPCL was found to be in order. Most importantly, while dismissing the appeal, the appellate authority has held that pursuant to NOC dated 27.03.2002 and permission dated

28.03.2002 granted by the Joint Chief Explosive Controller, the subject retail outlet was established and was operative rendering the condition of approval of the site plan to be insignificant and irrelevant. Despite opportunity, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any patent illegality and perversity in the order impugned. Neither, he could satisfy this Court that approval of the site plan by the NHAI was a mandatory condition precedent for [2025:RJ-JP:40173] (4 of 4) [CW-6132/2006] establishment of the retail outlet nor, he could satisfy that the defects raised by the NHAI in the site plan submitted by the HPCL were material in nature having bearing on the establishment of the retail outlet at the subject site. As a matter of fact, no such letter from the NHAI has been placed on record by the petitioner to demonstrate the shortcomings in the site plan submitted by the HPCL. In view thereof, this Court finds no occasion to interfere in the order impugned dated 21.03.2006 under its equitable jurisdiction. The matter can be examined from another angle as well. Indisputably, the order impugned dated 19.10.2005 was passed in gross violation of the cardinal principles of natural justice. The petitioner was neither issued any show cause notice nor, it was afforded any opportunity of hearing before passing it. Ordinarily, the matter is required to be referred back to the authority for compliance of the principles of natural justice; but, since, it has already been set aside by the appellate authority for other reasons and moreover, the subject retail outlet is operating for last more than 23 years without any complaint, this Court does not deem it just and proper to remand the matter. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. PRAGATI/29 (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J