Delhi High Court
Vinod Service Station vs Acp, Licensing & Ors. on 13 November, 2013
Author: V. K. Jain
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 13.11.2013
+ WP(C) No.7155 of 2013
VINOD SERVICE STATION ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dinesh Agnani, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Shweta Bharti, Mr. Vineet
Dwivedi,
Mr. Shiju George, Mr. Shantanu &
Mr. Neelesh Sinha, Advs.
versus
ACP, LICENSING & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Digvijay Rai, Adv. for R-3.
Mr. Atul Sharma, Mr. Milanka
Chaudhury, Mr. Sarojanand Jha, Mr.
Amit Ojha &
Ms. Garima Sharma, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN
JUDGEMENT
V.K.JAIN, J. (Oral)
CM Nos.15401-15402/2013 (Exemptions)
Allowed subject to just exceptions.
WP (C) No.7155/2013
The petitioner before this Court is challenging the order dated
10.10.2013, passed by respondent No.1, Additional Commissioner of
Police (Licensing) whereby he in exercise of the powers conferred upon
him under Rule 150 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 confirmed the show
cause notice issued to BPCL and cancelled the NOC issued to the Chief
Controller of Explosives on 22.12.2004 for obtaining the petroleum
license to run the existing retail outlet at Village Nangal Dewat, Khasra
No.1286, Opposite Centaur Hotel, IGI Airport, New Delhi with
immediate effect; and the communication dated 31.10.2013 issued to
BPCL referring to the order of the Additional Commissioner of Police
(Licensing) dated 10.10.2013 and informing it that pursuant to the
aforesaid order of the Additional Commissioner of Police (Licensing),
the licence issued to BPCL stands cancelled in terms of Rule 152 (1) (ii)
of the Petroleum Rules, 2002. As a result of the aforesaid orders, the
petitioner, which has been running the aforesaid petrol pump on the land
which was licensed to BPCL by the Airports Authority of India,
respondent No.3, is unable to run the said petrol pump any more.
2. Admittedly, WP (C) No.6930/2013 was filed by BPCL
challenging (i) the eviction order passed by the Eviction Officer of the
Airports Authority of India under the provisions of the Airports
Authority of India Act, 1994 in respect of the site of the above-referred
petrol pump; and (ii) the order of the Additional Commissioner of Police
(Licensing) dated 10.10.2013. Admittedly, the petitioner before this
Court was respondent No.7 in the aforesaid writ petition. The said writ
petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide order
dated 1.11.2013 with a direction to the appellate tribunal to dispose of
the application of the petitioner therein for condonation of delay in filing
the appeal as expeditiously as possible and also dispose of the appeal
itself within a period of eight (8) weeks. In the meanwhile status quo
was directed with regard to possession of the above-referred petrol
pump site. It would, thus, be seen that despite the BPCL having
challenged the order dated 10.10.2013 passed by the Additional
Commissioner of Police (Licensing) and having sought a writ of
certiorari quashing the said order dated 10.10.2013 and also having
sought directions to the Chief Controller of Explosives not to take any
action pursuant to the said order passed by the Additional Commissioner
of Police, the Court in its wisdom, neither quashed the order dated
10.10.2013 nor did it issue any direction to any of the respondents in the
writ petition with respect to the implementation of the said order. It is
also pointed out by the learned counsel for the Airports Authority of
India that the aforesaid order dated 1.11.2013 was a consent order
having been passed in the presence of the learned counsel for the
petitioner. This is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It
would, thus, be seen that despite the aforesaid order dated 1.11.2013
having been passed in the presence of the petitioner, either no request
was made by the said respondent for quashing the order dated
10.10.2013 or at least staying its implementation or such a request was
made but was not granted by the Court. Either way, what is important is
that the petitioner before this Court accepted the order dated 1.11.2013
which contained no direction with respect to the order passed by the
Additional Commissioner of Police (Licensing) cancelling the NOC
granted to the BPCL in respect of the petrol pump in question.
3. In my view, having accepted the order dated 1.11.2013 despite
being a party to the writ petition and despite the order of the Additional
Commissioner of Police (Licensing) having been challenged in the said
writ petition it is not open to the petitioner before this Court to impugn
the same order by way of an independent writ petition. Particularly
when the said order is primarily against BPCL, though the petrol pump
in question is being run by the petitioner.
4. As regards the communication dated 31.10.2013, the said
communication is only a culmination of the order passed by the
Additional Commissioner of Police (Licensing) on 10.10.2013 since in
the absence of a no objection from the Petroleum and Explosive Safety
Organisation, BPCL or for that matter even the petitioner cannot run a
petrol pump at the site in question.
5. Another material aspect of the matter is that admittedly the
petitioner has preferred an appeal against the order dated 10.10.2013,
and the said appeal is pending. The appropriate remedy for the
petitioner, therefore, would be to seek stay of the said order in that
appeal.
6. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition being not
maintainable is hereby dismissed.
It is made clear that the view taken in this order shall not in any
manner effect the appeal filed by BPCL or the appeal filed by the
petitioner against the order of the Additional Commissioner of Police
(Licensing).
It is also made clear that dismissal of the writ petition shall not
come in the way of the petitioner approaching the appellate authority
before whom the appeal filed has already been pending, for stay of the
order dated 10.10.2013.
NOVEMBER 13, 2013 V.K. JAIN, J.
b'nesh
