Satyaveer Singh v. State of U.P. impugned order dated

learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of State-respondents.

2. The petitioner has preferred the present petition inter alia with the following prayers:- "(a) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 15.4.2024 passed by respondent no.2- Commissioner Aligarh Division Aligarh in Appeal No.698/2023 Satyaveer Singh Vs. State of U.P. & impugned order dated 15.5.2023 passed by respondent no.3-District Magistrate-Hathras vide its Letter No. 1750/िज०पू०अ०-पेटो०अनु०/2023 (Annexure No.1 & 2 to the writ petition). (b) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.3 to grant Final 'No Objection Certificate & License' for selling/storage of petroleum products of Category A, B & C at Khasra No.254, Khata No.264, Hatisa-Bhagwantpur, Tehsil & District Hathras, (c) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

3. Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the petitioner formed/constituted a company namely M/s S.S. Bio Petrochem Co. (hereinafter referred as Company) for selling/storage of petroleum products upon the Khasra No.254, Khata No.264, Hatisa Bhagwantpur, Tehsil & 2 WRIC No. 13650 of 2024 District Hathras for which the petitioner obtained necessary Registration Certificate dated 11.11.2020 & also granted approval letter dated 10.12.2020 issued by the competent authority of the Government of India. Thereafter the necessary N.O.C. & License for selling/storage of petroleum products, of category A, B & C are required, for which the petitioner applied by means of his application dated 12.01.2021 before the respondent no.3 as provided under Rules 141 & 144 of Petroleum Rules 2002.

4. In the said application dated 12.01.2021, the respondent no.3/District Magistrate, Hathras directed the respondent no.4/District Supply Officer, Hathras to submit its report, thereafter the respondent no.4 vide its letter dated 01.02.2021, called reports/No Objection from the concerned N.H.A.I., local Administration (police station & L.I.U.), Fire Department, U.P. Pollution Control Board & Forest Department whereon all the said concerned departments submitted its No Objection/favorable report dated

12.2.2021, 26.2.2021, 19.3.2021 & 26.2.2021, respectively, respondent no.4/District Supply Officer, Hathras, for issuance of No Objection Certificate & License.

5. Despite the aforesaid favorable reports/NOC of the local authorities, the respondent no.3/District Magistrate, Hathras has neither issued N.O.C. & License nor decided the petitioner's application, the petitioner has no option but to file Writ C No.1711 of 2023 before this Hon'ble Court, which was disposed off vide its order dated 18.1.2023 with the direction that respondent no.3 will decide petitioner's representation/application within 2 months from the date of the receipt.

6. When the aforesaid order was not complied, the petitioner again approached before this Hon'ble Court by filling Contempt Application No. 2681 of 2023, which was disposed off by this Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 18.4.2023, granting 3 months further time to the respondent no.3 for necessary compliance.

7. In pursuance to the aforesaid an order dated 15.05.2023 was passed by the respondent no.3, refusing to grant N.O.C. & License on account of the pendency of one criminal case U/s 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 bearing Case Crime No.155/2019 P.S.-Chandapa, District Hathras.

8. It is stated in paragraph 9 of the writ petition that the respondent no.3 by 3 WRIC No. 13650 of 2024 his own order granting license/N.O.C. to the main accused of Case Crime No.155/2019 for running its retail outlet.

9. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order dated 15.5.2023, the petitioner availed alternative remedy as provided under Rule 154(2) of the Rules 2002 by filling Appeal No.698/2023 (Computer Case No.C202318000000698) Satyaveer Singh Vs. State of U.P., dated 2.6.2023. The said appeal was registered on 2.6.2023 under the order's of respondent no.2 calling the record of the lower court and fixed 23.6.2023. When the appeal was not decided by respondent no.2, within 60 days, as provided under Rule 154(4) of the Rules 2002, the petitioner had no option, but to again approach before this Hon'ble High Court by filing Writ C No. 29367/2023 (Satyaveer Singh Vs. Commissioner Aligarh Division, Aligarh), which was disposed off by this Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 3.10.2023, directing the respondent no.2 to decide Appeal within 60 days from the date of its receipt.

10. When the order dated 3.10.2023 was not complied within time, the petitioner was again compelled to file Contempt Application No. 1822 of 2024 (Satyaveer Singh Vs. Smt. Chaitra V Commissioner Aligarh Division, Aligarh), before this Hon'ble High Court, wherein notices was issued by this Court vide its order dated 22.3.2024 to the opposite party, directing to comply with the order or appear in person on the next date i.e. 27.5.2024. Thereafter the respondent no.2, after getting the aforesaid notice of contempt, passed the impugned order dated 15.4.2024

11. It is argued by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner that the impugned orders dated 15.5.2023 & 15.4.2024 are totally illegal, perverse and reflects total non application of judicial mind in the facts & circumstances of the case. It is further argued that the same have been passed respondent no.2 & 3 without any basis/authority of Rules/Government Orders, which permit them to deny N.O.C. & License, mere pendency of single criminal case No. 155/2019. It is further argued that while passing the impugned orders dated 15.5.2023 & 15.4.2024, the respondent no.2 & 3 has totally ignored that despite lodging of the F.I.R., the main accused Vinod Kumar was subsequently granted N.O.C. & License for running its retail-outlet, therefore the orders impugned are totally in discrimination and are totally arbitrary. It is further argued that while passing the impugned orders the respondent no.2 & 3 has totally ignored that the 4 WRIC No. 13650 of 2024 petitioner is fully eligible person having its registration & No Objections from the concerned department, therefore only on the basis of single criminal case, the Final N.O.C. & License, can not be denied, without any authority/basis. It is further argued by learned Senior Counsel that while passing the impugned order dated 15.4.2024, the respondent no.2 has not applied its judicial mind and the same has been passed without recording any finding in very mechanical manner. In support of his argument he placed reliance upon the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ C No. 20359 of 2023 (Ashish Kumar Rai Vs. Union of India and 3 Others) decided on 08.08.2023. In support of his submissions, he also placed reliance upon judgement dated 22.02.2005 passed by this Court in Harprasad S/O Netrem Vs. State of U.P. Through Secretary, wherein, learned Single Judge relying upon Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sheo Prasad Misra v. The District Magistrate Basti and others 1979 (16) A.C.C. 6 held that mere involvement in a criminal case cannot in any way affect the public security or public interest. He further placed reliance upon paragraphs 16, 17, 18, 19 and 44 of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in C. Albert Morris v/s. K. Chandrasekaran and others (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 228.

12. On the other hand Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned Additional Advocate General State of U.P. alongwith Sri Vijay Shankar Prasad, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of State-respondents placed before this Court the Government Order dated 10.04.2023 and placed reliance upon the following paragraphs of the aforesaid Government Order:- "3. आवेदक से इस आशय का स्वघोिषत ्ऺमाण-प्ऴ भी ्ऺाप्त िकया जायेगा िक उसके िवरूद सम्पूणर् भारतवषर् के िकसी थाने में अपरािधक मुकदमा दजर् नहीं है और न ही िकसी न्यायालय में िवचाराधीन है।

4. यह ्ऺमाण-प्ऴ सामान्यतः दो वषर् के िलए मान्य होगा। इस अविध में यिद आवेदक िकस आपरािधक घटना में संिलप्त होता है अथवा ्ऺाथर् के िवरु्ध कोई अपरािध्ध मुकदमा दजर् होगा या वा िकसी संगिठत अपराध में या मािफया गितिविधयों में या असामािजक गितिविधयों में पकड़ा जाता है तब पुिलस िवभाग का यह उ्तरदाियत्व होगा िक इसकी सूचना वह िजला मिजस््िेट/कलेक्टर तथा संबंिधत िवभाग के अिधकािरयों को देगा और ्ऺमाण-प्ऴ तत्काल िनरस्त िकया जायेगा।"

13. It appears from the perusal of the aforesaid Government Order that the same has been issued pursuant to the order passed by this Court in Writ C 5 WRIC No. 13650 of 2024 No. 37521 of 2022 (Pankaj Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 20.02.2023.

14. From the perusal of the aforesaid order it transpires that the said judgment has been given by this Court for issuance of the Character Certificate in favour of the Contractors. In this view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that ratio of the aforesaid Government Order will not at all apply insofar as the present case is concerned.

15. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

16. From perusal of record, it transpires that no objection certificate has been refused by the authorities without assigning any cogent reasons. Further transpires that the main accused against whom the identical FIR has been lodged under section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 No Objection Certificate has been granted in his favour. In the case of Ashish Kumar Rai (Supra) as relied upon by Sri V. K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel it is stated in paragraph 5 of the judgment that the Petroleum Rules, 2002 and The Gas Cylinders Rules 2004 were required to be considered in the matter but the District Magistrate has not considered the aforesaid rules and passed the impugned order, which is not sustainable in eyes of law and is liable to be set aside by this Court.

17. From perusal of the aforesaid, the Court is of the opinion that both the orders dated 15.5.2023 & 15.4.2024 passed by the respondent no.2 & 3 respectively are liable to be set aside and hereby set aside.

18. The Matter is directed to be remitted before the District Magistrate, Hathras to proceed afresh in the light of the observations made herein above within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

19. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. September 10, 2025/Arti (Prakash Padia,J.) ARTI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of State-respondents.

2. The petitioner has preferred the present petition inter alia with the following prayers:- "(a) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 15.4.2024 passed by respondent no.2- Commissioner Aligarh Division Aligarh in Appeal No.698/2023 Satyaveer Singh Vs. State of U.P. & impugned order dated 15.5.2023 passed by respondent no.3-District Magistrate-Hathras vide its Letter No. 1750/िज०पू०अ०-पेटो०अनु०/2023 (Annexure No.1 & 2 to the writ petition). (b) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.3 to grant Final 'No Objection Certificate & License' for selling/storage of petroleum products of Category A, B & C at Khasra No.254, Khata No.264, Hatisa-Bhagwantpur, Tehsil & District Hathras, (c) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

3. Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the petitioner formed/constituted a company namely M/s S.S. Bio Petrochem Co. (hereinafter referred as Company) for selling/storage of petroleum products upon the Khasra No.254, Khata No.264, Hatisa Bhagwantpur, Tehsil & 2 WRIC No. 13650 of 2024 District Hathras for which the petitioner obtained necessary Registration Certificate dated 11.11.2020 & also granted approval letter dated 10.12.2020 issued by the competent authority of the Government of India. Thereafter the necessary N.O.C. & License for selling/storage of petroleum products, of category A, B & C are required, for which the petitioner applied by means of his application dated 12.01.2021 before the respondent no.3 as provided under Rules 141 & 144 of Petroleum Rules 2002.

4. In the said application dated 12.01.2021, the respondent no.3/District Magistrate, Hathras directed the respondent no.4/District Supply Officer, Hathras to submit its report, thereafter the respondent no.4 vide its letter dated 01.02.2021, called reports/No Objection from the concerned N.H.A.I., local Administration (police station & L.I.U.), Fire Department, U.P. Pollution Control Board & Forest Department whereon all the said concerned departments submitted its No Objection/favorable report dated

12.2.2021, 26.2.2021, 19.3.2021 & 26.2.2021, respectively, respondent no.4/District Supply Officer, Hathras, for issuance of No Objection Certificate & License.

5. Despite the aforesaid favorable reports/NOC of the local authorities, the respondent no.3/District Magistrate, Hathras has neither issued N.O.C. & License nor decided the petitioner's application, the petitioner has no option but to file Writ C No.1711 of 2023 before this Hon'ble Court, which was disposed off vide its order dated 18.1.2023 with the direction that respondent no.3 will decide petitioner's representation/application within 2 months from the date of the receipt.

6. When the aforesaid order was not complied, the petitioner again approached before this Hon'ble Court by filling Contempt Application No. 2681 of 2023, which was disposed off by this Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 18.4.2023, granting 3 months further time to the respondent no.3 for necessary compliance.

7. In pursuance to the aforesaid an order dated 15.05.2023 was passed by the respondent no.3, refusing to grant N.O.C. & License on account of the pendency of one criminal case U/s 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 bearing Case Crime No.155/2019 P.S.-Chandapa, District Hathras.

8. It is stated in paragraph 9 of the writ petition that the respondent no.3 by 3 WRIC No. 13650 of 2024 his own order granting license/N.O.C. to the main accused of Case Crime No.155/2019 for running its retail outlet.

9. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order dated 15.5.2023, the petitioner availed alternative remedy as provided under Rule 154(2) of the Rules 2002 by filling Appeal No.698/2023 (Computer Case No.C202318000000698) Satyaveer Singh Vs. State of U.P., dated 2.6.2023. The said appeal was registered on 2.6.2023 under the order's of respondent no.2 calling the record of the lower court and fixed 23.6.2023. When the appeal was not decided by respondent no.2, within 60 days, as provided under Rule 154(4) of the Rules 2002, the petitioner had no option, but to again approach before this Hon'ble High Court by filing Writ C No. 29367/2023 (Satyaveer Singh Vs. Commissioner Aligarh Division, Aligarh), which was disposed off by this Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 3.10.2023, directing the respondent no.2 to decide Appeal within 60 days from the date of its receipt.

10. When the order dated 3.10.2023 was not complied within time, the petitioner was again compelled to file Contempt Application No. 1822 of 2024 (Satyaveer Singh Vs. Smt. Chaitra V Commissioner Aligarh Division, Aligarh), before this Hon'ble High Court, wherein notices was issued by this Court vide its order dated 22.3.2024 to the opposite party, directing to comply with the order or appear in person on the next date i.e. 27.5.2024. Thereafter the respondent no.2, after getting the aforesaid notice of contempt, passed the impugned order dated 15.4.2024

11. It is argued by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner that the impugned orders dated 15.5.2023 & 15.4.2024 are totally illegal, perverse and reflects total non application of judicial mind in the facts & circumstances of the case. It is further argued that the same have been passed respondent no.2 & 3 without any basis/authority of Rules/Government Orders, which permit them to deny N.O.C. & License, mere pendency of single criminal case No. 155/2019. It is further argued that while passing the impugned orders dated 15.5.2023 & 15.4.2024, the respondent no.2 & 3 has totally ignored that despite lodging of the F.I.R., the main accused Vinod Kumar was subsequently granted N.O.C. & License for running its retail-outlet, therefore the orders impugned are totally in discrimination and are totally arbitrary. It is further argued that while passing the impugned orders the respondent no.2 & 3 has totally ignored that the 4 WRIC No. 13650 of 2024 petitioner is fully eligible person having its registration & No Objections from the concerned department, therefore only on the basis of single criminal case, the Final N.O.C. & License, can not be denied, without any authority/basis. It is further argued by learned Senior Counsel that while passing the impugned order dated 15.4.2024, the respondent no.2 has not applied its judicial mind and the same has been passed without recording any finding in very mechanical manner. In support of his argument he placed reliance upon the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ C No. 20359 of 2023 (Ashish Kumar Rai Vs. Union of India and 3 Others) decided on 08.08.2023. In support of his submissions, he also placed reliance upon judgement dated 22.02.2005 passed by this Court in Harprasad S/O Netrem Vs. State of U.P. Through Secretary, wherein, learned Single Judge relying upon Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sheo Prasad Misra v. The District Magistrate Basti and others 1979 (16) A.C.C. 6 held that mere involvement in a criminal case cannot in any way affect the public security or public interest. He further placed reliance upon paragraphs 16, 17, 18, 19 and 44 of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in C. Albert Morris v/s. K. Chandrasekaran and others (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 228.

12. On the other hand Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned Additional Advocate General State of U.P. alongwith Sri Vijay Shankar Prasad, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of State-respondents placed before this Court the Government Order dated 10.04.2023 and placed reliance upon the following paragraphs of the aforesaid Government Order:- "3. आवेदक से इस आशय का स्वघोिषत ्ऺमाण-प्ऴ भी ्ऺाप्त िकया जायेगा िक उसके िवरूद सम्पूणर् भारतवषर् के िकसी थाने में अपरािधक मुकदमा दजर् नहीं है और न ही िकसी न्यायालय में िवचाराधीन है।

4. यह ्ऺमाण-प्ऴ सामान्यतः दो वषर् के िलए मान्य होगा। इस अविध में यिद आवेदक िकस आपरािधक घटना में संिलप्त होता है अथवा ्ऺाथर् के िवरु्ध कोई अपरािध्ध मुकदमा दजर् होगा या वा िकसी संगिठत अपराध में या मािफया गितिविधयों में या असामािजक गितिविधयों में पकड़ा जाता है तब पुिलस िवभाग का यह उ्तरदाियत्व होगा िक इसकी सूचना वह िजला मिजस््िेट/कलेक्टर तथा संबंिधत िवभाग के अिधकािरयों को देगा और ्ऺमाण-प्ऴ तत्काल िनरस्त िकया जायेगा।"

13. It appears from the perusal of the aforesaid Government Order that the same has been issued pursuant to the order passed by this Court in Writ C 5 WRIC No. 13650 of 2024 No. 37521 of 2022 (Pankaj Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 20.02.2023.

14. From the perusal of the aforesaid order it transpires that the said judgment has been given by this Court for issuance of the Character Certificate in favour of the Contractors. In this view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that ratio of the aforesaid Government Order will not at all apply insofar as the present case is concerned.

15. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

16. From perusal of record, it transpires that no objection certificate has been refused by the authorities without assigning any cogent reasons. Further transpires that the main accused against whom the identical FIR has been lodged under section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 No Objection Certificate has been granted in his favour. In the case of Ashish Kumar Rai (Supra) as relied upon by Sri V. K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel it is stated in paragraph 5 of the judgment that the Petroleum Rules, 2002 and The Gas Cylinders Rules 2004 were required to be considered in the matter but the District Magistrate has not considered the aforesaid rules and passed the impugned order, which is not sustainable in eyes of law and is liable to be set aside by this Court.

17. From perusal of the aforesaid, the Court is of the opinion that both the orders dated 15.5.2023 & 15.4.2024 passed by the respondent no.2 & 3 respectively are liable to be set aside and hereby set aside.

18. The Matter is directed to be remitted before the District Magistrate, Hathras to proceed afresh in the light of the observations made herein above within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

19. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. September 10, 2025/Arti (Prakash Padia,J.) ARTI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad