Vijaya Oil Company, Rep. by Its Partner V.R.K.V. Prasad Vs. Vijayawada, Guntur Tenali Urban Development Authority and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under.....orderp.s. narayana, j.1. vijaya oil company, guntur is the writ petitioner in both these writ petitions. 2. w.p. no. 34076/97 is filed praying for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, especially one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent in rc. no. e1/381/97 dated 20-11-1997 and the consequential proceedings of the 2nd respondent in roc. no. 6847/97/g1 dated 28-11 -1997 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, without jurisdiction, mala fide, opposed to principles of hatural justice and null and void and to pass such other suitable orders.3. vijayawada, guntur, tenali urban development authority, vijayawada, municipal corporation, guntur and m/s. hindustan petrolium corporation limited, secunderabad, were originally shown as.....

Judgment:
ORDER

P.S. Narayana, J.

1. Vijaya Oil Company, Guntur is the writ petitioner in both these Writ Petitions.

2. W.P. No. 34076/97 is filed praying for issuance of an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent in Rc. No. E1/381/97 dated 20-11-1997 and the consequential proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Roc. No. 6847/97/G1 dated 28-11 -1997 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, without jurisdiction, mala fide, opposed to principles of hatural justice and null and void and to pass such other suitable orders.

3. Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali Urban Development Authority, Vijayawada, Municipal Corporation, Guntur and M/s. Hindustan Petrolium Corporation Limited, Secunderabad, were originally shown as respondents. G.Saraswathi, a neighbour, filed an application to implead herself as a party in WPMP. No. 3173/98 and by order dated 1 -7-98 she was impleaded as 4th respondent.

4. R-2 and R.3 filed counter affidavits and reply affidavit also was filed.

5. This Court on 22-12-1997 made the following Order:

Mr. A. Raghavaiah takes notice for R-1, Mr. T.S.Venkata Ramana takes notice for R.2 and Mr.Sanjay Kumar takes notice for R-3.

It appears prima facie that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to suspend the licence of the petitioner. Under Rule 153 of the Petroleum Rules, 1976 the Licensing Authority has got a right to suspend the licence on the grounds that the licensee ceases to have any right to the site for storing petroleum or if the 'No Objection Certificate' was cancelled or for any violation of the Act. Proviso of the Rules also makes it clear that before suspension, the holder of the licence shall be given an opportunity. In the present case, this rule appears to have been complied only in its breach.

In the circumstances, there shall be interim suspension of the impugned order. Post the Writ Petition for admission after two weeks in M.L.

6. This Court issued rule nisi on 16-3-1998 and the interim order earlier granted was continued until further orders and the same was made absolute on 9-7-1998 while posting the Writ Petition itself for final hearing.

7. W.P. No. 25460/99 is also filed by the self-same M/s. Vijaya Oil Company, Brundavan Gardens, Guntur, as against the Collector and the District Magistrate, Guntur, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, represented by its Regional Manager, Secunderabad, and Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, South Circle, Sastri Bhavan, Chennai as respondents 1 to 3 praying for a Writ of Mandamus declaring impugned order of the 1st respondent in his proceedings Rc. No. 3551/97-Ex.C6, dated 3-4-99 which was despatched on 2-12-1999 and received by petitioner on 6-12-1999 as illegal, arbitrary, not bona fide, without jurisdiction, opposed to principles of natural justice and null and void and hit by Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and to pass such other suitable orders.

8. The first respondent filed counter affidavit specifying that the said counter is being filed on behalf of the other respondents also under their authorization.

9. A reply affidavit is filed.

10. This Court while issuing rule nisi on 10-12-1999, granted an order of status quo for a limited period, which was subsequently extended and ultimately continued until further orders on 27-1-2000 and the interim order, in fact, was made absolute on 18-4-2000 and the matter was directed to appear in the list subject to part-heard on 12-6-2000.

11. Thus, both these matters are taken up for final hearing before this Court on 3-11-2006.

12. Submissions of Sri Movva Chandrasekhar Rao: Sri Movva Chandrasekhar Rao, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner would maintain that a Petrol Filling Station is permitted in a residential area and in fact, all the required permissions and the no objection certificate had been obtained but however the impugned orders were made in W.P. No. 34076/97 without any authority and contrary to law and in such circumstances, the writ petitioner approached this Court and obtained interim order. The learned Counsel also would submit that the local people have no locus standi to raise such objections. The learned Counsel also would submit that when all conditions had been complied with, on certain irrelevant and non-existing grounds, the impugned order was made by the first respondent in W.P. No. 25460/99 which was questioned by the writ petitioner and had obtained an interim order. The learned Counsel had taken this Court through the respective pleadings and also the orders impugned in both these Writ Petitions and would maintain that the respective respondents are not justified in making such orders at all since the said orders are either without authority or not based on any tenable objections whatsoever.

13. Submissions of Smt. Aruna: Smt. Aruna, the learned Counsel representing R.1 in W.P. No. 34076/97 would maintain that the Vice-Chairman in question has power to revoke the permission and in the interest of the public of the locality, the action had been taken. The Counsel made certain submissions in relation to the representations made by the local people and the order of suspension made by the Vice-Chairman in this regard.

14. Submissions of Sri Peda Babu: Sri Peda Babu, the learned Counsel representing R.4 in W.P. No. 34076/97 would maintain that the impugned order is only an interim order and the Vice-Chairman can definitely make such an order. The learned Counsel also would submit that respondent No. 4, a neighbour, is definitely an affected party and the local people raised several objections and the very location or establishment of this Petrol Filling Station is contrary to the Rules and the guidelines inasmuch as there is no sufficient width of the road and for that the necessary space from the marked boundary also had not been left.

15. Submissions of Government Pleader for Civil Supplies: The learned G.P. for Civil Supplies would maintain that when the location or establishment of a Petroleum Filling Station is hazardous to public health, the first respondent in W.P. No. 25460/99 is definitely empowered to make such an order which is impugned in the Writ Petition. The learned Counsel also would submit that misleading particulars relating to the width of the road had been furnished and the stand that the road is of 60 feet wide is not correct. The learned Counsel also would submit that the safety of the local people and the public also may have to be taken into consideration and the environmental problems also may have to be kept in view and when serious objections are raised by the public, the competent authority -- the first respondent is duty bound to consider the same and hence after giving due opportunity, the impugned order was nude. The learned G.P. also would point out that the impugned order itself is self-explanatory since reasons in detail had been given. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the relevant Rules, the Petroleum Rules of 1976, which were applicable at the relevant point of time, and the present Petroleum Rules 2002.

16. The impugned orders in W.P. No. 34076/97:

The first respondent -Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali Urban Development Authority, Vijayawada made an order dated 20-11 -1997 in Rc. No. E1/381/97 dated 20-11-1997 which reads as hereunder:

VIJAYAWADA-GUNTUR-TENALI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

VIJAYAWADA-520 002.

K. Mangapathi Rao, las

Vice-Chairman.

Rc. EI/381/97, Dated:20-11-1997

To

The Commissioner,

Municipal Corporation,

GUNTUR.

Sir,

Sub: VGT UDA - Suspension of permission granted for installation of Petrol Bunk at Survey No:6/E, Brindavan Gardens, Guntur until further Orders - requested -regarding.

Ref:(1) ROC. No. 6847/97/G1, dated 18-8-97 of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Guntur.

(2) Proceedings of the Vice-Chairman, VGT UDA, Vijayawada, for granting permission to install Petrol Bunk, vide D.Dis. No. E1/270/97, dated 11-10-1997 (BP. No. 81/97/GNT)

(3) Memorandum of Appeal of Residents of Brindavan Gardens against the permission for installation of Petrol Bunk in the residential locality, dated 17-11-1997 addressed to Dr. D.V. Balavardhana Rao, Chairman of VGT UDA, Vijayawada.

xxx

The proposal for installation of Petrol Bunk forwarded by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Guntur in the reference (1) cited was examined and the permission was granted vide this office proceedings under reference (2) cited taking into consideration of the Zoning Regulations and the 'No Objection Certificate' issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer, Guntur, Fire Services Department, Guntur, and the approval of drawings for installation of Petrol Bunk by the Department of Explosives, Chennai.

However, a memorandum of appeal was submitted by the residents of Brindavan Gardens, Guntur, to the Chairman of this Authority against the installation of Petrol Bunk in the site under reference. The memorandum was examined and the Chairman and Members of this Authority have inspected the site under reference and felt that the location of Petrol Bunk amidst thick residential locality is highly objectionable as it creates Air and Noise pollution to the residents.

Hence, the Chairman of this Authority directed to suspend the permission granted by this Authority in the reference (2) cited for the time being until further orders and the final decision will be taken by the Authority after receipt of remarks from the Inspector of Explosives and the District Collector as the residents of the area have expressed their views against the installation of the Petrol Bunk.

In view of the above circumstances, the permission granted by this Authority for installation of Petrol Bunk in Survey No. 6/E, Brindavan Gardens, Guntur, vide proceedings under reference (2) cited is suspended for the time being. Hence, I request you to take necessary action to stop the construction of structures for installation of Petrol Bunk including underground Petrol Filling tank.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/- K. Mangapathi Rao,

Vice-Chairman.

Copy to:

(1) Sri V.Rama Krishna VaraPrasad, SVN Colony, Guntur.

(2) The Executive Sales Officer, H.P.C.Ltd., 1st floor, Siri Apartments, 4th lane, Ashok Nagar, Guntur-2.

(3) The District Collector and Magistrate, Guntur (Civil Supplies) for necessary action.

(4) The Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur.

(5) The Mandal Revenue Officer, Guntur.

//t.c.f.b.o.//

Sd/-

Administrative Officer.

17. The Municipal Commissioner, Guntur the 2nd respondent made an order dated 8-11-1997 in Roc. No. 6847/97/G1 which 3ads as hereunder:

Roc. No. 6847/97/G1/Dt. 28-11-97

Municipal Corporation,

Guntur.

NOTICE

Sub: Guntur Municipal Corporation -Installation of underground Tank of Petrol at Brundavan Gardens area - Permission Suspended -Regarding.

Ref: (1) Proceedings D.Dis. No. E1/270/97 Dt.11-10-1997 of the Vice-Chairman, V.G.T.U.DA, Guntur.

(2) Order Rc. No. E1/381/97/dated 20-11-1997 of the Vice Chairman, V.G.T.UDA, Vijayawada.

(3) Order of the Commissioner dated 27-11-97.

* * *

The permission to install underground Tank of Petrol at R.S. No. 6/ E, Brundavan Gardens given vide reference 1 above, is suspended as per the Orders of the Vice-Chairman, V.G.T. UDA, Vijayawada, vide in the reference 2nd cited.

Hence, you are hereby informed to stop the work for installation of Underground Tank at R.S.N0.6/E, Brundavan Gardens.

Sd/-

For Commissioner,

Municipal Corporation,

Guntur.

To

(1) Sri V. Ramakrishna Prasad, S.V.N. Colony, Guntur.

(2) M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Executive Sales Officer, 1st Floor, Siri Apartments, 4th lane, Ashok Nagar, Guntur.

(3) Copy to the Vice-Chairman, U.D.A. for information.

18. The writ petitioner is the authorised dealer for purchase and sale of petroleum products and the 3rd respondent company in W.P. No. 34076/97 (hereinafter, in short, referred to as 'Company') entered into a Petrol Dealer agreement with the petitioner dated 1 -2-1976 appointing him as the dealer for the retail sale or supply of petroleum products. Previously, the Company had installed a Petrol Filling Station in a leasehold site in Tobacco Colony on the outskirts of Guntur town by the side of the Trunk road from Guntur to Vijayawada and the petitioner was appointed as dealer for sale and supply of petroleum products. As the lease of the site expired, the Company surrendered that site to its owner and instructed the petitioner for resitement in Guntur-ll town for installation of Petrol Filling Station since there was only one such Petrol Filling Station in Guntur-ll town while there are 23 such filling stations in Guntur-I town. The petitioner purchased 400 sq.yards of vacant site in S. No. 6/E of Nallapadu Revenue village in the year 1996 and obtained registered sale deeds on 17-6-1997. The Company got the plans prepared as per the rules framed under the relevant enactments like Petrolium Act, Explosives Act, the Municipal Corporation Act etc., and the Company submitted an application dated 22-11-1996 along with the plans to the Collector, Guntur for granting 'No Objection Certificate' for installation of the Petrol Filling Station. It is further stated that the Collector, Guntur instructed various authorities namely, the Municipal Corporation, Guntur, Revenue Divisional Officer, Mandal Revenue Officer, Superintendent of Police, District Forest Officer, District Medical and Health Officer and Chief Controller Explosives etc., to inspect and send their reports regarding desirability of granting 'No Objection Certificate' and that the said authorities inspected the site and sent reports recommending the issuance of 'No Objection Certificate' to the Company for installation of Petrol Filling Station. It is stated that as dealer, the petitioner invested about five lakhs of rupees for purchasing the site and for other expenses and another one lakh of rupees for purchasing 4000 litres of petrol as per invoice dated 18-11-1997 and the Company also invested another sum of two lakhs of rupees for installation of underground storage tank for erecting pipe line and for erecting dispensing pump. It is also stated that after issuance of 'No Objection Certificate', the Company installed an underground tank of 22,000 litres capacity of petrol and installed the petrol dispensing pump. The Company also obtained licence under the Explosives Act on 18-11-1997 and the petitioner also obtained registered certificate from Commercial Tax Department and Central Sales Tax. It is further stated that the Joint Collector, Guntur renewed the licence of storage in Form-B on 2-11-1997 for purchase, sale, storage for sale of petroleum oils from 2-11 -1997 to 31 -12-1997 and the petitioner purchased 4000 litres of petrol under invoice No. 307433 dated 18-11 -1997 for the value of Rs. 1,08,683/- which was delivered to the petitioner on the same date. It is also further stated that on 19-11-1997 the District Inspector of Legal Metrology (Weights and Measures), after inspection, issued a certificate dated 19-11-1997 itself and the petitioner started selling petrol to the customers from 19-11-1997. While so, it is stated that the first respondent and the second respondent issued the impugned proceedings referred to supra and the said impugned proceedings are questioned in the Writ Petition by raising several grounds like want of jurisdiction, want of notice, estoppel, mala fides and interference for political reasons.

19. In the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent - the Company, substantially, the stand taken by the writ petitioner had been repeated.

20. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent at para 3 it was stated that the District Collector, Guntur, forwarded the copy of the application of the petitioner to Guntur Municipal Corporation and requested to enquire into the matter and report on the desirability of issuing 'No Objection Certificate' for installation of underground tank of 22,000 litres for Class-B storage for petrol. It is stated that during the course of process of file, a public representation addressed to the District Collector, Guntur raising an objection that the site for installation of the Petrol Filling Station falls under residential area and is dangerous to the people in surroundings and the same was forwarded to the Guntur Municipal Corporation for enquiry and report. It is further stated that the site was inspected and a detailed report was prepared on the proposal duly mentioning the objection s and forwarded the same to the Vice-Chairman, V.G.T.U.D.A. for orders since they are the competent authorities to issue N.O.C. as per the Rules in force. It is also further stated that the Company has unauthorisedly installed storage tank for erecting pipeline and for erecting dispensing pump. It is also stated that the Company installed an underground tank of 22,000 litres capacity of petrol and installed the petrol-dispensing pump without obtaining permission for the construction. It is also further stated that the first respondent issued the proceedings in Roc. No. 381/97/E1/dt. 20-11 -97 requesting this respondent to take necessary action to stop the construction of the structures for installation of petrol bunk including underground Petrol Filling Tank on the ground that the residents of the surroundings filed a memorandum of appeal against the granting of permission for installation of Petrol Bunk complaining that the said suit was located in the residential locality and it causes Air and Noise pollution to the residents. It is also further stated that this respondent issued the consequential order in the proceedings Roc. No. 6847/97/ G1/dt.28-11 -1997 informing the petitioner and the Company to stop the work for installation of the underground basing on the suspension orders issued by the V.G.T.U.D.A. It is also stated that it is not true to say that the underground tank was already constructed and Petrol Filling Station has came into operation by 19-11 -1997. It is further stated that in fact the petitioner has commenced the further construction only after obtaining the interim injunction by this Court and the petitioner never obtained regular permission or licence from the competent authority i.e., the District Collector. It is also further stated that the petitioner has now ay right to approach this Court as the plaintiff never applied for regular permission from any of the competent authorities and only the Company had approached the competent authorities to obtained permission. It is also stated that the petitioner has unauthorisedly commenced the installation of the Petrol Filling Station. Further stand is taken that the respondents are competent under the provisions of A.P. Urban Area (Development) Act, 1975 and H.M.C. Act to cancel the permission granted in the interest of public. Further specific stand is taken that the width of the existing road is only 47 ft. in front of the site in question though 80 ft. road is proposed in the Master Plan and it may not be possible to implement it even at a distance future.

21. No doubt, certain submissions were made that the V.G.T.U.D.A. is having such power to make an order of suspension. But, in view of the facts and circumstances and also in the light of the stand taken in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and also the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent - Company, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order in the said Writ Petition cannot be sustained.

22. Impugned Order in W.P. No. 25460/99:

The Collector and the District Magistrate - the 1sl respondent in the Writ Petition on 3-4-1999 in Rc. No. 3551/97-C6 made the following Order:

PROCEEDINGS OF THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE:: GUNTUR

PRESENT: SRI SHASHANK GOEL, IAS.,

Rc. No. 3551/97-C6, Dated: 03-04-1999

Sub: Petroleum Act & Rules - Guntur District, Guntur Mandal and Town -W.P. No. 31019/97 dt. 24-11 -1997 from High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad filed by Bhavanam Govinda Reddy and two others of Guntur against the 'No Objection Certificate' granted for installation of Petrol Bunk out-let in S.N0.6/E of Brundavan Gardens, Guntur, in favour of Manager (Sales) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Secunderabad in residential locality - Show cause Notice issued - 'No Objection Certificate' cancelled -Orders - issued - Regarding.

Read: (1) Application of Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Secunderabad dated 25-11-1996.

(2) Collector's D. Dis. No. 2538/96-C6dt.28-10-1997

(3) Hon'ble High Court of A.P. Hyderabad order W.P. No. 31019/ 97 dt.24-11 -97 filed by Bhavanam Govinda Reddy and others, Guntur.

(4) Collector's Notice Rc.3551/97-C7 dt.29-12-97, 23-1-98, 28-7-98, 7-9-98 and 19-10-1998.

(5) Collector's Notice Rc. No. 3551 /97-C7 dt.22-1-1999 to the Chief Regional Manager, H.P.C. Limited, Secunderabad.

(6) From Chief Regional Manager, H.P.C.Ltd., Secunderabad explanation dt.10-2-99

(7) Other connected papers.

***