ORDER
Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the cancellation of the “No Objection
Certificate” issued to it on 15.4.1998, under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules 1976. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (licensing) had cancelled the “No Objection Certificate”, following registration of an FIR under Section 407 IPC read with Sections 7, 10 and 55 of Essential Commodities Act against the petitioner.
2. The case against the petitioner was that in contravention of the Petroleum Rules, two tankers having bitumen and furnace oil, of different consignees, were unloaded at the petitioner’s site unauthorizedly, one of the tankers was for goods consigned to M/s. M.C. Construction, Gohana in Haryana while the other tanker was for MCD, Timar Pur.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before me that cancellation of the licence i.e. of “No Objection Certificate”, was totally on extraneous grounds as there has been no violation of any of the terms and conditions on which the licence was granted. Learned counsel relies on the observation made by the learned single Judge of this court while granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner’s proprietor that no complaint had been lodged by either the IOC or MCD. Learned counsel further submits that no action could have been taken till the criminal case was finally decided. Learned counsel submits that it would cause grave hardship and prejudice to the petitioner if the petitioner was to be finally acquitted in the criminal trial, while the licence is cancelled now. The submissions though appear attractive in the first flush are devoid of merit. Taking action for breach of any of the terms of the Petroleum Rules or the terms and conditions of the “No Objection Certificate”, cannot be deferred to await the final conviction or acquittal in the criminal prosecution. In the instant case, the factum of the unauthorised unloading of the two tankers containing furnace oil and bitumen is not in dispute.
4. For the tanker containing Biutmen, petitioner’s explanation is that two anti social elements, for business rivalry, had brought the tanker containing bitumen meant for MCD forcibly at the site and called the police, thereby falsely implicating the petitioner for offloading the tanker. It is pertinent to note that petitioner did not lodge any complaint for trespass with the police authorities. The explanation is not credible and does not inspire any confidence. As for the second tanker, the explanation offered was that the tanker containing furnace oil was unloaded temporarily on the instructions of M/s. Pooja Road lines as the consignee was not having storage facilities. The Licencing Authority cannot be faulted with for not accepting these explanations. There is also no merit in the contention that there has been no violation of any of the terms of the “No Objection Certificate”. Strict adherence to the Petroleum Rules and its compliance cannot be underscored having regard to the nature of the products required to be secured, their safety and prevention of any adulteration or misuse thereof. Rule 151 in terms itself provides that the cancellation of “No Objection Certificate” could be done if the State Government District Authority is satisfied that the licensee has ceased to have the right to store petroleum. This cannot be given a narrow meaning, and confining it to a licensee ceasing to have the right to use the site on account of either the expiry of the lease or licence of the premises. A harmonious interpretation of this Rule would be that the licensee, if he violates the terms and conditions of the petroleum Rules or violates any statutory provision governing the storage of petroleum products, the licensee shall be deemed to have ceased to have the right to use site for storing petroleum. This interpretation would be in consonance and in keeping with the objects of the Petroleum Rules. On a perusal of the order of the DCP, Licencing and the appellate order, I do not find any infirmity or ground, which calls for interference in the exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. The petition has no merit and is dismissed.