2020 (1) TMI 1196 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issuance of No Objection Certificate sought by the fifth respondent without insisting compliance of the IRC guidelines for the property proposed for the petroleum outlet - HELD THAT - Identical petition have been dismissed as premature, holding that if at all the petitioners have any grievance against the application of IRC guidelines in the matter of considering their request for No-objection Certificate under Rule 144 of the Rules, they cannot approach this Court before a decision is taken in the matter, taking the view that this Court would not be justified in issuing direction to a statutory body indicating or specifying the manner in which it has to discharge its functions - It was also held by this Court in the said judgment that in the absence of any guidelines issued by the Central Government prescribing the manner in which the applications for No-objection Certificates under Rule 144 of the Rules have to be dealt with, the District Authority cannot be found fault with for having insisted compliance of the IRC Guidelines for the properties where the petroleum outlets are proposed to be established in the matter of issuing the No Objection Certificates. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Consideration of No-objection Certificate under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 without compliance of IRC Guidelines for establishment of petroleum retail outlets.

Analysis:
The judgment addressed the issue of considering the application for a No-objection Certificate under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 without insisting on compliance with the Indian Road Congress (IRC) Guidelines for the establishment of petroleum retail outlets. The petitioner sought directions to the District Authority to issue the No-objection Certificate without requiring adherence to the IRC Guidelines, arguing that these guidelines do not have the force of law. Previous interim orders had directed District Authorities to consider such requests without enforcing the IRC guidelines, and a similar interim order was passed in this case as well.

The court noted that following the interim order, the No-objection Certificate was granted to the fifth respondent for the petroleum outlet without enforcing compliance with the IRC guidelines. However, this issuance was challenged in another petition on the grounds that steps were being taken to incorporate the IRC Guidelines into the Manual of the Public Works Department, suggesting that the issuance was premature. The court heard arguments from all parties involved, including the petitioners, the Government Pleader, and the Standing Counsel for the fifth respondent.

Subsequently, the court referred to a previous judgment where similar writ petitions were dismissed as premature, emphasizing that approaching the court before a decision is made on the application of IRC guidelines is not justified. The court held that in the absence of specific guidelines from the Central Government regarding the application process for No-objection Certificates, District Authorities were within their rights to insist on compliance with the IRC Guidelines. Therefore, the court concluded that the petition in question was to be dismissed based on the previous judgment.

The petitioner argued that irreversible harm would be caused if the writ petition was dismissed, citing the commissioning of the petroleum outlet following the interim order. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that any actions taken by the petitioner based on the interim order were at their own risk. As the application for the No-objection Certificate was considered based on an interim order that was found to be not maintainable, the court directed the District Authority to reconsider the application in accordance with the law. Consequently, one petition was dismissed, and another was allowed to set aside the No-objection Certificate, requiring a fresh consideration of the application by the District Authority.