1994 PLP 283 (SCMR)

‑‑‑‑R.122‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑‑‑Installation of petrol pump‑‑‑No objection certificate for installation of petrol pump issued to petitioner on 11‑11‑1989 was subsequently cancelled by Deputy Commissioner on complaint of respondent without hearing the petitioner ‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Contentions raised by petitioner were that no objection certificate could not be cancelled after about one year during which time petitioner made heavy investment, which gave him vested right; thirty days time was allowed under 8.122, Petroleum Rules, 1937 to file appeal against No‑Objection Certificate, and appeal filed beyond that period was not .competent and no‑objection certificate was cancelled after one year without notice or hearing; petitioner had legal authority to challenge cancellation on behalf of petroleum company; and respondent who had challenged grant of No‑Objection Certificate and filed civil suit in respect of title of land in question, subsequently had withdrawn his civil suit‑‑‑Leave was granted to consider contentions raised by petitioner. Pir Altaf Hussain Shah, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 13th October, 1993. 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 m 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. A.A./M‑1824/S Leave granted.