Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and anr. Vs. the Lt. Governor, Govt. of Nct Delhi and ors. - Court Judgment

#38 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1968/2014 & CM APPL. 4116/2014 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR ..... Petitioners Through Mr. Parijat Sinha with Mr. Avneesh Garg and Ms. Reshmi R. Sinha, Advocates versus THE LT. GOVERNOR, GOVT. OF NCT DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through Ms. Zubeda Begum, Standing Counsel with Ms. Sana Ansari, Advocate for R-1 & 2. Mr. Neeraj Chaudhari, CGSC with Mr. Ravjyot Singh, Advocate for R-3 & 4. Mr. Digvijay Rai, Advocate for R-5. Date of Decision :

16. h May, 2014 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) 1. At the outset, learned counsel for petitioners states that he does not wish to press prayer (v) of the present writ petition. Consequently, prayer (v) of the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

2. It is pertinent to mention that the present writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 10th October, 2013 and 08th November, 2013 passed by respondent No.2-Additional Commissioner of Police, Licensing, Delhi as well as order dated 12th February, 2014 passed in Case No.253 of 2013 by the respondent No.1-Appellate Authority, namely, Lieutenant Governor, Delhi whereby the 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) granted to petitioner under Rule 150 of the Rules, 2002 has been cancelled.

3. In the impugned order dated 12th February, 2014 Lt. Governor of Delhi has given the following reasoning for dismissal of the petitioners’ appeal :

“......Further, I would like to observe that AAI has to take considerate decisions keeping in view its need of land for various facilities for smooth operations of the airports has changed and as the AAI in its wisdom has now decided that due to airport expansion and development there is a need to remove the petrol pump/retail outlet, it has every right to do so. The Licensing Authority cancelled its NOC based on withdrawal of NOC by AAI for operating a petrol pump/retail outlet on its land which is the premises under consideration. I therefore, find no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. Both the appeals are, therefore, dismissed.”

(emphasis supplied) 4. Mr. Parijat Sinha, learned counsel for petitioners states that respondent-AAI has no jurisdiction to issue and, in fact, had never issued a NOC to the petitioner No.1 for setting up a petrol pump. Consequently, he states that on the ground of alleged withdrawal of NOC by respondent-AAI, the Licensing Authority cannot withdraw/cancel the NOC under Rule 150 of Petroleum Rules, 2002 (for short ‘Rules, 2002’).

5. Mr. Sinha contends that till the petitioner is in possession and the eviction order does not attain finality, the NOC issued by Joint Chief Controller of Explosives could not have been cancelled.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Digvijay Rai, learned counsel for respondent- AAI states that present writ petition is infructuous as in the meantime, respondent No.2-ACP (Licensing) has withdrawn its licence and in any event, the said licence would have expired by efflux of time on 31 st December, 2013.

7. Mr. Rai points out that petitioner had been granted license only because petitioner was issued an allotment letter and possession letter by respondent-AAI. In this connection, he has drawn this Court’s attention to petitioner’s own application to DPC (Licensing), Delhi dated 10th September, 2004 which was accompanied by a copy of the allotment letter and possession letter.

8. Mr. Rai further states that the land on which petrol pump is situated is a part of the proposed cargo terminal and is urgently required for development work. He also states that petitioner has defaulted in payment of licence fee amounting to Rs. 2.49 crores as well as interest.

9. In rejoinder, Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for petitioner vehemently disputes the fact that the land where petrol pump is situated is required for any development work. He further states that there has been no default in payment of license fee as the said amount has been paid to DIAL in pursuance to respondent-AAI’s own letter dated 4th May, 2006.

10. Mr. Sinha lastly states that renewal of NOC/license by the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives is a mere formality. He states that renewal could not be applied for in time as in the interregnum, the NOC had been withdrawn by ACP (Licensing) under Rule 150 of Rules, 2002.

11. Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused the paper book, this Court is of the opinion that the NOC under Rule 144 of Rules, 2002 had been granted by DCP (Licensing) on the basis of allotment and possession letters issued by respondent-AAI. This is apparent from the petitioner’s own application dated 10th September, 2004 for issuance of NOC to DCP (Licensing), Delhi.

12. Consequently, though strictly speaking an NOC was not required to be issued by respondent-AAI, yet in view of the revocation of the allotment letter as well as respondent-AAI’s need for land, ACP (Licensing) and Lt. Governor of Delhi were justified in cancelling the NOC under Rule 150 of Rules, 2002.

13. This Court is also of the view that present writ petition has become academic as another essential certificate issued by the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives stands withdrawn and in any case, would have expired by efflux of time on 31st December, 2013. It is pertinent to mention that no extension of NOC issued by Joint Chief Controller of Explosives has been sought till date.

14. This Court is also of the opinion that the impugned orders have been passed after complying with the principles of natural justice and the reasons contained therein are neither perverse nor arbitrary.

15. Consequently, present writ petition and application are dismissed but with no order as to costs. MANMOHAN, J MAY16 2014 rn