Allowed

M/S Renukamba Fuels v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Jul 2024WP/6890/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an endorsement cancelling a No Objection Certificate for a petrol bunk. The Court held that a pending civil suit filed by the licensee against adjacent owners did not justify cancellation under Rule 150(2). Petitioner's counsel argued alternative remedy was available, but the Court found the order arbitrary and without jurisdiction, allowing the writ.

What did the court decide?

The impugned endorsement dated 19.02.2024 revoking the No Objection Certificate is quashed.

M/S Renukamba Fuels Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:28202 WP No. 6890 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 6890 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

M/S RENUKAMBA FUELS

¶7

SY NO 5/6, BERATENA AGRAHARA, BEGUR HOBLI, PILLAR NO. 181, NEAR HERO SHOW ROOM, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 100. REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR P-2 [PROPRIETOR CONCERNED] LICENCE NO. BO27192746152839925

¶8

HARSHAVARDHAN R S/O G REVANNA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO 1539, 19^TH MAIN A BLOCK, AECS LAYOUT,

¶9

SINGASANDRA BENGALURU - 560 068.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

Digitally signed by Vandana S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI. SANGAMESH R B, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY - 01

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ALI ASGAR ROAD, BANGALORE - 01

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. S T NAIK, AGA)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:28202 WP No. 6890 of 2024

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.02.2024 (ANNEXURE-A) ISSUED BY THE R2 BEARING NO.369/MAG/COP/EXPLOSIVE/2019.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

In this petition, the petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned endorsement at Annexure-A dated 19.02.2024 issued by respondent No.1, whereby the No Objection Certificate dated 05.03.2020 issued by the respondents in favour of the petitionerlicensee to run a petrol bunk at the subject premises was revoked/cancelled by the respondents.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

¶25

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the Smt. Sharifunnisa and Sri. Mohammed Irfan are the land lords of the subject land, which are leased out in favour of petitioner No.2 /licensee/lessee for the purpose of running the petitioner No.1subject petrol bunk. The petrol bunk was established pursuant to

¶26

the NOC issued by respondent No.2 on 05.03.2020. In the meanwhile, a suit in O.S.No.455/2020 was instituted by the said

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:28202 WP No. 6890 of 2024

¶28

landlords, Smt. Sharifunnisa and Sri. Mohammed Irfan (plaintiffs) along with petitioner No.2 against their adjacent land owners for permanent injunction and other reliefs and the said suit is pending adjudication and an interim order was passed in favor of the plaintiffs on 26.06.2020 against the defendants/adjacent land owners. It is the grievance of the petitioners that though the pendency of the aforesaid suit does not in any way restrict or take away their right, title and interest over the subject land and the petrol bunk, the respondents proceeded to pass the impugned endorsement summarily rejecting the NOC, which is contrary to the Rule 150 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 (for short “the said Rules of 2002”), which do not contemplate cancellation merely on the ground of pendency of the suit that too filed by the petitioner herein and as such, the impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.2 deserves to be quashed.

¶29

Per contra, learned AGA supports the impugned endorsement and submits that there is no merit in the writ petition, especially in the light of availability of equally efficacious and alternative remedy of preferring an appeal under Rule 154(2) of the

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:28202 WP No. 6890 of 2024

¶31

said Rules of 2002 and as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶32

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the only ground on which the respondents were entitled to/empowered/authorised to cancel the NOC is by coming to the conclusion that the petitioners-licensee had ceased to have any right to use the subject property for storing petrol. In the instant case, apart from the fact that there was a suit in O.S.No.455/2020, that too instituted by the petitioners along with their lessor/owners against the adjacent land owners/labourers/third parties, there is absolutely no other material to come to the conclusion that the land owners or lessees have ceased to have right for the purpose of storing petrol. In other words, mere institution of a suit for injunction simpliciter by the land owners against the neighbours would not be a circumstance, which would enable/entitle the respondents to cancel the NOC and consequently, the impugned endorsement is illegally, arbitrary and contrary to Rules 150(2) and 150(1) of the said Rules of 2002 and the same deserves to be quashed.

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:28202 WP No. 6890 of 2024

¶34

In so far as the contention urged by the respondents

¶35

and learned AGA that in view of availability of equally efficacious and alternative remedy by way of appeal under Section 154(2) of the Petroleum Rules, the present petition is not maintainable is concerned, as stated herein before, the impugned endorsement is not only ex-facie, illegal and arbitrary, but also contrary to the provisions contained in Rule 150(1) of the said Rules of 2002 and the same being without jurisdiction and authority of law, mere availability of alternative and efficacious remedy by way of appeal under Rule 154(2) of the said Rules 2002 would not come in the way of this Court in exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶36

In the result, I pass the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

i. The Writ Petition is allowed .

¶39

ii. The impugned endorsement at Annexure-A dated 19.02.2024 issued by respondent No.2 is hereby quashed.

¶40

BMC: List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

M/S Renukamba Fuels v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Renukamba Fuels v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Green -O- Tech India Vs M/S Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd.

Sunil Rao G K Vs Lingadevachari @ Lingadevarajachar

B.A. Nagendra Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Srisai Solar Technologies Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Sarasamma .C Vs Karnataka State Finance Corporation

Mr B S Chidananda Reddy Vs Tumkur Grain Merchants