Allowed

Shri. Sandesh Hawaldar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Feb 2014WP/10580/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court quashed impugned communications cancelling a No Objection Certificate granted to a petitioner, holding they were issued in violation of principles of natural justice by failing to afford an opportunity of being heard before cancellation. Merits were kept open.

What did the court decide?

Impugned communications dated 8th November 2013 quashed; set apart for hearing; show cause notice ordered.

Shri. Sandesh Hawaldar Vs State of Maharashtra and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

ash

¶2

wp-10580.13ca-2075.13

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10580 OF 2013 ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3075 OF 2013 IN WRIT PETITION NO.10580 OF 2013

¶5

Shri Sarjerao R. Patil & Another. .. Applicants Vs The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents

¶6

Shri Amitkumar Damodar Sale for the Applicants.

¶7

CORAM : A.S. OKA & M.S. SONAK, JJ DATE : 14TH FEBRUARY 2014

¶8

P.C.

¶9

We have perused the report of the Assistant Registrar as well as the concerned Clerk and the Section Officer of this Court. The concerned members of the staff have expressed regret. We accept what is stated in the said reports. No further action is called for.

¶10

On 18^th October 2010, the third Respondent granted dealership of a retail outlet to the Petitioner at BagniKakachiwadi on Ashta Vadgaon Road. Various licenses were granted to the Petitioner. The second Respondent/District Collector had issued No Objection Certificate on 19^th April 2011 in accordance with Rule 144 of the

¶11

2 wp-10580.13ca-2075.13

¶12

ash

¶13

Petroleum Rules, 1976. The license for storage of petroleum products was also granted to the Petitioner after dealership agreement was executed on 23^rd June 2011. The Petitioner started running the petrol pump. On the basis of the complaint made by the Applicants in the Civil Application No.3075 of 2013 that no objection was granted to the Petitioner in violation of the Petroleum Rules, by the impugned communications dated 8^th November 2013 issued by the second Respondent/District Collector to the third Respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited as well as the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives of Union of India, the No Objection Certificate earlier granted by the third Respondent was cancelled.

¶14

Apart from the submission on merits, the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that before passing the drastic order of cancellation of No Objection Certificate, the Petitioner ought to have been heard by the District Collector. He pointed out that acting upon the No Objection Certificate, various licenses have been granted to the Petitioner and the Petitioner has commenced the business of running a petrol pump.

¶15

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the Applicants in the Civil Application for intervention. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the fourth Respondent and the learned

¶16

ash 3 wp-10580.13ca-2075.13

¶17

AGP for the first and second Respondents. There does not appear to be any dispute that the impugned communications dated 8^th November 2013 have been issued by the Collector without giving an opportunity to the Petitioner of being heard. In the impugned communications, it is observed that the Executive Engineer of the Public Works Department as well as the Assistant Director of Town Planning, Sangli, submitted letters of No Objection to the office of the third Respondent without considering the provisions of the relevant Rules. It is observed that the No Objection Certificate was granted in breach of the relevant Rules and, therefore, the same was being cancelled.

¶18

On the basis of the No Objection Certificate, the fourth Respondent has granted license for storage of petroleum products and the third Respondent has executed the dealership agreement in favour of the Petitioner. Moreover, the Petitioner commenced the business in July 2011. Therefore, before taking a drastic action of cancellation of the No Objection Certificate, the second Respondent/District Collector ought to have given an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner. Therefore, only on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice, we set aside the impugned communications.

¶19

The learned counsel appearing for the Applicants in the Civil Application No.3075 of 2013 submits that the second Respondent

¶20

ash

¶21

wp-10580.13ca-2075.13

¶22

¶23

District Collector may be directed to hear the Applicants before passing any order. We make it clear that we have not made any adjudication on the said request as it is for the District Collector to take appropriate decision in that behalf.

¶24

Hence, we dispose of the Petition by passing the following

¶25

order.

¶26

ORDER :

¶27

(a) The impugned communications dated 8^th November 2013 (Exhibits K and L to the Petition ) are quashed and set aside only on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice. It will be open for the second Respondent/District Collector to issue a show cause notice to the Petitioner calling upon the Petitioner to show cause as to why the No Objection Certificate granted earlier should not be revoked;

¶28

(b) If the show cause notice is issued, it will be open for the Petitioner to file a reply. If such show cause notice is issued, before passing any order on the show cause notice, the second Respondent /District Collector shall give an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner;

¶29

ash

¶30

wp-10580.13ca-2075.13

¶31

¶32

(c) It will be open for the second Respondent /District Collector to decide the question as to whether an opportunity of being heard deserves to be granted to the Applicants in the Civil Application No.3075 of 2013;

¶33

(d) All questions on merits are kept open;

¶34

(e) The Writ Petition and the Civil Application are disposed of on above terms;

¶35

(g) We make it clear that we have not made any adjudication on the controversy whether the No Objection Certificate granted earlier to the Petitioner is in breach of the principles of natural justice;

¶36

(M.S. SONAK, J)

¶37

( A.S. OKA, J )

Shri. Sandesh Hawaldar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Sandesh Hawaldar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Vaishali Shivaji Powar Vs Ld. District Collector of Kolhapur and Ors.

Ankush Vitthal Shelar and Ors. Vs the Secretary, Urban Land Dept and Ors.

Mr. Vijay Shripati Shinde Vs the Collector of Satara and Ors.

Tower Vision India Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shri. Bhairu Shankar Jadhav, through Constituted Attorney, Shri. Sahadev Shankar Jadhav Vs Union of India, through Ministry of Finance and Ors.

Punnab and Sind Bank Vs Export Credit Guarantee Corporation