Dismissed

Vivek Kumar Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC12 Mar 2019WPC/571/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-bench order dismisses a writ petition challenging an order withdrawing No Objection Certificate for a petroleum outlet. The court held that the basis for withdrawal (cancellation of diversion order) ceased to exist as the diversion order was revived by a superior authority, leaving the matter pending before the Supreme Court.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed subject to the observation that the petitioner may re-agitate the issue if the Supreme Court's decision in the diversion matter goes in his favour.

Vivek Kumar Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2019)

¶1

1 WPC No. 571 of 2019

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPC No. 571 of 2019

¶5

Vivek Kumar Pandey S/o Shri Gouri Shanker Pandey Aged About 29 Years Occupation Business, R/o Niche Para Jai Stambha Chowkdharamjaigarh Civil And Revenue District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

The Commissioner Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

The Collector / District Magistrate Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chahttisgarh.

¶11

The Territory Manager M/s Retail Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

Mahendra Singh Komal S/o Late Sarabh Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o Civil Line Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chahttisgarh.

¶13

---- Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner : Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Adv. with Shri Umesh Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Rajesh Singh, Dy. G.A.

¶15

Order On Board

¶16

¶17

Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

¶18

2 WPC No. 571 of 2019

¶19

12/03/2019

¶20

On an earlier occasion petitioner had preferred WPC No. 1 of 2014, raising the issue of diversion of land belonging to the respondent No.5 on which he has installed Petroleum outlet.

¶21

The Writ Petition was dismissed by Single Bench on 06.01.2014 against which Writ Appeal No.186/2015 and SLP(C) No.26231/2015 preferred by the petitioner also came to be dismissed.

¶22

As a matter of fact SLP(C) was dismissed as withdrawn reserving liberty to work out his remedy against the final order dated 15.10.2013 which was passed by the Additional Collector, Raigarh.

¶23

The District Magistrate Raigarh had in fact passed an order on 05.10.2013 and not on 15.10.2013 canceling the NOC issued in favour of Respondent No.5 for establishment of the Petroleum Outlet. That cancellation was directed because the diversion order in favour of Respondent No.5 was set-aside by Collector, Raigarh on 26.09.2013.

¶24

Subsequently, the order dated 26.09.2013 passed by Collector, Raigarh in diversion matter was stayed by the Commissioner and eventually the said order was set-aside and the original order of diversion was revived. It is informed that the said diversion issue is pending consideration before Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶25

The Collector's order dated 05.10.2013 had its basis on his own order dated 26.09.2013 in diversion matter, however, once the said order cancelling diversion has been set-aside by the Superior Revenue Authority, there was no legal justification for continuing the order

¶26

3 WPC No. 571 of 2019

¶27

restricting in the respondent No.5 from enjoying the NOC.

¶28

The present impugned order has been passed for the reason that the matter in issue had already been decided by the Single Bench and Division Bench of the High Court. On careful consideration, I am also of the view that there being an order of diversion in favour of respondent No.5 the very basis of the District Magistrate's order dated 5.10.2013 withdrawing NOC for cancellation of Petroleum Outlet no longer survives.

¶29

As and when the diversion issue is decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court and if the decision goes in petitioner's favour, he may re-agitate the issue. For the present there is no scope for interference with the impugned order.

¶30

The Writ Petition is dismissed subject to the above observation.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

( Prashant Kumar Mishra ) Judge

¶33

Ayushi

Vivek Kumar Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Kumar Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh

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

Vishnu Dayal Agrawal and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Reema Sahu and Ors. Vs Jageshwar Prasad

M/S. Shree Durga Foods Raipur Vs Punjab National Bank and Ors.

Rajkumar Mishra (Petitioner in Person) Vs C.G.Rajya Suchna Aayog

Santoshi Binjhwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohanlal Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh