Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Manoj Mohanlal Bilala and Deepak Sunderlal Murarka, filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging an order dated 24-2-2014 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati (respondent No.1). The order rejected the petitioners' objections to the tenability of an appeal filed by respondent No.3, M/s Harjimal Onkarlal, a partnership firm running a petrol pump. The background facts are that on 30-8-2012, respondent No.4 filed an application before the District Magistrate, Akola (respondent No.2) seeking closure of the petrol pump run by respondent No.3. A similar application was made by petitioner No.1 on 31-8-2012. The Additional District Magistrate, Akola, held an enquiry and on 10-6-2013 made a proposal observing that the no-objection certificate dated 16-4-1959 was not valid after the death of Hajarimal Onkarmal on 26-5-1959, and that the District Magistrate lacked power to stop supply of petrol. The District Magistrate approved this proposal on 15-6-2013 and forwarded it to the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives on 17-6-2013. Aggrieved, respondent No.3 filed an appeal under Rule 154 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 before the Divisional Commissioner, seeking to set aside the proposal and approval. The petitioners raised objections that the appeal was not maintainable as the proposal/report was not an 'order' under Rule 154. The Divisional Commissioner rejected these objections, holding the appeal maintainable. The High Court considered the issue of whether the appellate authority had jurisdiction to decide maintainability and whether the appeal was maintainable. The court noted that Rule 154 provides for an appeal against any order of the District Magistrate, and the proposal/report in question was an order affecting the rights of respondent No.3. The court held that the appellate authority has the power to decide its own jurisdiction and maintainability, and the objections were rightly rejected. The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the order of the Divisional Commissioner.
Headnote
A) Petroleum Law - Appeal - Maintainability - Rule 154 of Petroleum Rules, 2002 - The petitioners challenged the maintainability of an appeal filed by respondent No.3 against a proposal/report of the Additional District Magistrate and approval of the District Magistrate. The appellate authority rejected the objections. The High Court held that the appellate authority has jurisdiction to decide its own maintainability and that the appeal was maintainable as the proposal/report amounted to an 'order' under Rule 154. (Paras 1-7) B) Petroleum Law - Appellate Authority - Jurisdiction - Rule 154 of Petroleum Rules, 2002 - The court held that the appellate authority under Rule 154 has the power to decide whether the appeal is maintainable, and the petitioners' objections were rightly rejected. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appeal filed by respondent No.3 under Rule 154 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 against the proposal/report of the Additional District Magistrate and the approval of the District Magistrate was maintainable.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The order dated 24-2-2014 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati, rejecting the petitioners' objections to the maintainability of the appeal, is upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Rule 154 of Petroleum Rules
- 2002 provides for appeal against any order of District Magistrate
- including a proposal or report
- appellate authority has jurisdiction to decide maintainability of appeal
- objections to maintainability can be raised before appellate authority.
