Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

YOGESH KUMAR AND ORS. versus BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD. AND ORS.

Decided
10 August 1990
Judges listed
M.H. KANIA, KULDIP SINGH (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1990] 3 S.C.R. 736 · 1990 INSC 229
Also cited as
  • (1990) 4 SCC 49 (5 citing judgments)
  • AIR 1990 SC 2216 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

On the facts and circumstances of the case including the facts set "'-·~-out in the counter affidavit filed by R.B. Sahi we are not inclined to interefere with the impugned order passed by the Allahabad High Court.

p. 737, margin B

Very briefly stated respondent No. 1 is the owner of a Petrol

p. 737, margin C

Pump which is set up on a site in Dehradun, of which respondent No. 1 ~---is the lessee. The 'No Objection Certificate' granted for conducting the said Petrol Pump.was cancelled by respondent No. 5, the District Magistrate of Dehradun, and that order was upheld by the Commissioner. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court by the impugned judgment set aside the order of the Commissioner. The special leave petition is directed against the said order as we have already observed we see no reason to interfere with the actual order passed by the Division Bench but we would like to make a clarification regarding the interpretation of Rule 151 of the Rules framed in under the Petroleum Act.

p. 737, margin C

Rule 144 of the said Rules deals with the issue of a 'No Objection Certificate' for a new license for running a Petrol Pump. Rule deals with the cancellation of the 'No Objection Certificate' and the said rule reads as follows:

p. 737, margin E

( 1) "A no objection certificate granted under Rule 144 shall·be liable to be cancelled by the District Authority or the State Government, if the District Authority or the State Government is satisfied, that the licensee has ceased to have any right to use the site for storing petrol; Provided that before cancelling a no objection certificate, the licensee shall be

p. 737, margin F

given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (2) A District Authority or a State Government cancelling a 'no objection certificate shall record in writing the reasons for such cancellation and shall immediately furnish to the licensee and to the licensing authority concerned a copy of the

pp. 737–738, margin G

order cancelling the no objection certificate."'

p. 738, margin A

The High Court has rightly observed that the District Authority under Rule 151 can cancel the No Objection Certificate only when the licensee ceases to have any right to use the site for storing petrol. However, there are certain subsequent observations made by the High Court in the impugned judgment which might lead to an inference that so long as the licensee continues to have lease-hold right& on the site, the 'No Objection Certificate' cannot be cancelled at all. That does not appear to be the correct position in law. On a reading of sub"'1'Ule ( 1) of Rule 151 it is clear that a 'No Objection Certificate' granted under Rule 144 can be cancelled wherever the licensee ceases to h11.ve any right to use the site for storing petrol and that right could be lost by a licensee either by his tenancy or right to the use of the site coming to an end or for any other reason whereby, in law, the right to use the site for storing petrol ceases.

p. 738, margin A

In view of the clarification which we have made, Dr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not wish to press the petition. The Special Leave petition is, therefore, dismissed. N.P.V. Petition dismissed.

p. 738, margin D