MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs COMMISSIONER, RAWALPINDI DIVISION and 2 others
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which upheld the cancellation of a No Objection Certificate (N.O.C.) for a petrol pump. The petitioner, an agent for Pakistan State Oil Company, had been granted an N.O.C. in 1989, which was subsequently cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner, Chakwal, in 1990 following complaints regarding land ownership and misrepresentation. The petitioner challenged the cancellation, arguing that he had acquired a vested right through significant financial investment, that the cancellation occurred without a hearing, and that the appeal against the N.O.C. was time-barred under the Petroleum Rules, 1937. The High Court had dismissed the petition, citing the petitioner's lack of locus standi and the fact that the petitioner was heard during the appellate proceedings before the Commissioner. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the N.O.C. could be cancelled after such a duration, the validity of the appeal process under the Petroleum Rules, 1937, and the petitioner's standing to challenge the cancellation.
- Can a No Objection Certificate for a petrol pump be cancelled after a significant period during which the licensee has made substantial investments?
- Does an agent of an oil company have the locus standi to challenge the cancellation of a No Objection Certificate granted to the company?
- Is an appeal against the grant of a No Objection Certificate competent if filed beyond the thirty-day period prescribed under the Petroleum Rules, 1937?
- Rule 122, Petroleum Rules 1937
ORDER
' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J. ---By this petition leave is sought against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, whereby writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. Grievance of the petitioner is that for the purpose of installation of petrol pump no objection certificate was issued on 11-11-1989 which was subsequently cancelled on 13-9-1990 by Deputy Commissioner, Chakwal, on the complaint of respondent No,3 Altaf Hussain s/o Haji Nooruddin, without hearing the petitioner, who is agent of Pakistan State Oil Company and invested about Rs,5 lac for setting up the said petrol pump.
2. On the other hand it appears from the impugned judgment and other documents included in the record that respondent No,3 had prayed for cancellation of N.O.C. On the ground that the petitioner had misrepresented the facts before the District administration and did not own required area of the land and further land shown by him was jointly owned by other co-sharers and was not partitioned. Respondent No,3 purchased a portion of the land from that Khasra number and has filed a civil suit for declaration of title which was pending. Consequently N.O.C. Was cancelled.
Petitioner filed appeal which was heard and dismissed by the Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division, vide order dated 7-1-1991. Petitioner then filed writ petition in the High Court where respondents took up the stand that no-objection certificate was granted in favour of P.S.O. Company which did not file appeal against its cancellation and petitioner did not have locus standi to challenge the cancellation. In any case petitioner was heard during appeal before the Commissioner and no exception to the cancellation order could be taken on merits.
3. Before us contentions are raised on behalf of the petitioner firstly that no-objection certificate could not be cancelled after about one year during which time petitioner made heavy investment, which gave him vested right. Secondly, under Rule 122 of Petroleum Rules, 1937, 30 days' time is allowed to file appeal against no-objection certificate and appeal filed beyond that period is not competent and N.O.C. Was cancelled after one year without notice or hearing. Thirdly, he had legal authority to challenge cancellation on behalf of P.S.O. Fourthly, respondent No,3, who had challenged grant of N.O.C. And filed civil suit in respect of title of the land in question, subsequently had withdrawn the civil suit.
4. Leave is granted to consider contentions raised and mentioned above.