Amrit Lal vs State of Punjab and Another

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.—This writ petition is filed against the rejection of the application of the petitioner to grant a licence of store petroleum products by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jagraon on the ground that he had no authority to grant licence under the Petroleum Rules, 1976.

Admittedly, petitioner applied for a licence under Rule 141 of the Petroleum Rules, 1976. The application was made to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for grant of licence. The Sub Divisional Magistrate by his order dated 1.12.1993 informed the petitioner that he was not competent to grant licence. According to the petitioner, he did not receive the said communication. When he did not receive any reply from the Sub Divisional Magistrate in respect of his application, he approached this Court.

In the written statement filed by the respondents it is clearly mentioned that the Sub Divisional Magistrate passed an order dated 1.12.1998 rejecting the application to grant the licence on the sole ground that he was not competent to grant licence under the rules.

It is now to be seen whether the rejection of the application of the petitioner by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on the ground that he was not competent to grant licence can be said to be illegal.

The petitioner applied for the grant of licence for storing petroleum products Class. A and B namely petrol and high speed diesel oil in Form No. 8 which is annexed as R.1 alongwith the written statement filed by the respondents. In column 3(i) it is mentioned that the petitioner wanted to store 300 litres of class-A bulk. He also further wanted to store high-speed diesel oil of 25,000 litres in bulk. The learned counsel for the petition expressed that the petitioner had not applied for storing petroleum products in bulk but in the replication filed by the petitioner to the written statement it has been clearly mentioned that the petitioner applied for storing 300 litres of petroleum Class A and 25,000/- litres of petroleum of class B, both in bulk. Thus there cannot be any controversy over the question whether the petitioner wanted a licence in regard to petroleum in bulk.

"Petroleum in bulk" as defined in Rule 2 (xvi), means petroleum contained in a tank irrespective of the quantity of petroleum contained therein:. ''Tank'' is defined in Rule 2 (xxi). ''Tank'' means a receptable for petroleum exceeding 1,000 litres in capacity. To bring the petroleum within the definition of "petroleum in tank" it must necessarily be stored in a tank. ''Tank'' as defined in the rules, means a receptacle for petroleum exceeding 1,000 litres in capacity. The quantity stored in the tank is not material for bringing it within the definition of "petroleum in bulk". If it is stored in a tank then it amounts to petroleum in bulk. When the petitioner applied for licence to store the petroleum in bulk it is to be seen whether the Sub Divisional Magistrate has got the power to grant licence. First Schedule to the Petroleum Rules, 1976 prescribes the authorities which are empowered to grant licence. Under Article 3 of the First Schedule to import and store petroleum Class A in quantity not exceeding 300 lts. the District Authority has been empowered to grant licence. Likewise under Article 4 of the First Schedule to import and store petroleum Class B, otherwise than in bulk in quantity not exceeding 25,000 Lts. the District Authority has been empowered to grant a licence but in both the cases if the petitioner wants to store the petroleum product in bulk then the authority empowered to grant licence is the Chief Controller or a Controller of Explosive authorised in this behalf by the Chief Controller, under Article 5 of the First Schedule of the Petroleum Rules, 1976. The learned counsel argued that the petitioner wants to store petroleum of A Class quantity not exceeding 300 lts. and Class B not exceeding 25,000 lts. His case falls under Articles 3 and 4 respectively. Therefore, it is the District Authority alone with is competent to grant licence. The rules also contain the definition of ''District Authority''. As defined in Rule 2 (ix) "District Authority" means - (a) in towns having a Commissioner of Police, the Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner of Police; Therefore, in the instant case the ''District Authority'' and ''District Magistrate is again defined in clause 10 of Section 2 also including an Additional District Magistrate in the States of Punjab and Haryana and in the Karaikat, and Union territory of Pondicherry, also includes a Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Therefore, an Sub-divisional Magistrate in the States of Punjab and Haryana are empowered to grant a licence in respect of the petroleum products falling under Article 3 and 4 of the First Schedule of the Petroleum rules, 1976.

But the question is whether the application of the petitioner falls under Articles 3 and 4 or under Article 5 of the petroleum Rules, 1976. As already observed, Article 3 is applicable to those who want to store petroleum A class not exceeding 300 lts. It does not talk of storing petroleum in bulk. Article 4 deals with storage of petroleum class B other than bulk not exceeding 25,000 lts. Thus it is clear that Articles 3 and 4 apply to the case of the petitioner which do not fall within the definition "petroleum in bulk". "Petroleum in bulk" as defined in Section 2 sub section (xv) - means petroleum contained therein. So it is clear that if the intention is to store the Petroleum in bulk then Article 5 is attracted. As already mentioned, ''tank'' is defined as a receptable for petroleum within the definition of "Petroleum in bulk" it must necessarily be stored in tank. Quantity in the tank is immaterial. As discussed above, the petitioner applied for licence to store petroleum product in bulk in which case Chief Controller or Controller of Explosive is empowered to grant licence. In this view of the matter, neither the District Authority nor the Sub Divisional Magistrate has any power to grant licence to the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, the application of the petitioner has been rightly rejected.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not want to store the petroleum product in tank and therefore, it will not come within the definition of ''petroleum in bulk''. But the application made by the petitioner does not show this intention on the part of the petitioner. If the petitioner wants to make a fresh application, he may do so specifying that he does not want to store the petroleum in bulk but he wants to store petroleum not exceeding 300 lts., petroleum Class ''A'' and petroleum Class ''B'' other than in bulk. If the fresh application is made by the petitioner, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate will consider it on merits within two months from the date of receipt of such application.

The writ petition therefore fails and is accordingly dismissed.