Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6.transport Commissioner-2016

    Uploaded by

    Thangaraj
    8 views6 pages
    Petroleum Act - ORDER

    Original Title

    6.Transport Commissioner-2016

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Petroleum Act - ORDER

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    8 views6 pages

    6.transport Commissioner-2016

    Uploaded by

    Thangaraj
    Petroleum Act - ORDER

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 6
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, CHEPAUK, CHENNAI - 5. Present: THIRU. SATYABRATA SAHOO,LA.S., R.No 64791/M5/2014 dated: 02.12.2016 ‘Transport Department - Petroleum Act & Rules 2002 ~ Appeal Petition against the order of the District Revenue Officer, Kanchipuram - Filed by M/s. Indian Ol Corporation Limited, Chennai - Orders Issued - Regarding. Ref: 1. Proceedings of the District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram In R.No.45091/M3/2010, dated:05.12.2014. 2. Appeal petition filed by M/s. Indian Limited on dated.29.12.2014, 3. The Transport Comrrissioner, Chepauk, Chennal-5 Letter No.64791/M5/2014, _dated.27.01.2015 (addressed to the District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram). il Corporation 4, Letter ‘received on dated.29.07.2015 _ from Thiru.T.Dinesh, Dealer, M/s.Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Annanagar, Chennai-40. 5. District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram Letter R.No.45091/M3/2010, dated,13.07.2016. tee ORDER: In the reference 1* cited, the “District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram has cancelled the No Objection Certificate granted to M/s.Indian | Corporation Limited to run a retall outlet In survey No.68/78, Uthiramerur Main Road, Vedhapalayam Village, Uthiramerur Taluk. Aggrieved by the above order, M/s. Indian Limited in the reference 2™ cited, have Hence the District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram was addressed to send the | Corporation led an appeal petition in this office. remarks on the appeal petition and the connected records. In the meantime, the landowner Thiru.T.Gobisankar and the Dealer Thiru.T.Dinesh requested to implead them as a party In the appeal proceedings. On receipt of the remerks and related records In the reference 5" cited, hearing notice was send to the Corporation, the land owner and the dealer to appear before the Appellate Authority (The Transport Commissioner) on 11.08.2016, On 11.08.2016, the landowner Thiru.T.Goblsankar and the Dealer Thiru.T.Dinesh appeared ard given the written statement. Nobody appeared on behalf of M/s. Indlan Oil Corporation Limited. Hence, agai the Petitioner (M/s.Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Chennal) is requested to appear before the Transport Commissioner on 21.09.2016 at 3.00 PM for personal hearing. Due to administrative reasons hearing was not conducted on 21.09.2016 and postponed to 21.10.2016 at 3.00pm. During the personal hearing on 21.10.2016 at 3.30pm, M/s.Indian Oil Corporation Limited, the Landowner Thiru.T.Gobisankar and the Dealer ‘Thiru.T.Dinesh were appeared and. given the written statement as detailed below. Representation of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited: 4, The land admeasuring 5440 sq.ft of land In Survey No.68/78, Uthirumerur Main Road, Vedhapalayam Vilage, Uthiramerur Taluk was taken on lease by JOCL from Mr. T.Gobisanker by entering into Lease Deed dated 30.06.2006, Subsequently, a Retail Outlet was developed at a cost of Rs.42.00 Lakhs in the year 2007, and after obtaining all necessary approvals which includes NOC from DRO, Kanchipuram, the Explosives Department approval and the same was handed over to its Dealer Mr. T. Dinesh, who is brother of Mr. T. Gobishankar for operating the Retails Outlet. 2 In respect of the difference in the area of land taken on lease we have been consistently stating that this was unintentional and were always ready to hand over the additional land of 1058sq.ft. to the land owner Mr.7.Gobl Sankar, We had negotiation with the land owner to surrender but he has not agreed to our proposal. The excess land proposed to be surrendered Is GX} shown in the drawing which is enclosed for references. It is pertinent to note that the storage facilities, tanks, pumps. Building and other permanent structures dre within the demarcated area of 5440sq.ft. It is pertinent to mention that the sketch submitted by Mr. T. Gobisankar is with @ view to close the RO operations by making it unviable for vehicle entry. 3. The RO dealership of Mr. T, Dinesh was terminated on 08.01.2013. IOCL Proposes to run this RO as COCO (Company Owned Company Operated) outlet to serve the motoring public. IOCL had already indicated its willingness to rectify the Plan for demarcation of area. The Plan is submitted covering an area of 5440sq.ft to match the terms of the lease. As per the Plan attached, IOCL is ready to surrender the frontage of 4.5 Meters i.e., 14.76sq,ft. to Mr.T.Gobisankar. 4. Under the above circumstances, we request you to restore the NOC granted to IOGL to the extent of 5440sq.ft. of land to serve the motoring public and also enable utilization of the i ing of assets of our public sector undertaking. Representations of Thiru,T.Gobisankz (land Owner, 1. Indian Oil Corporation haven't corrected and ratified the Lease Deed Plan Diagram. Indian oil misled the government authorities using an Incorrect diagram claiming the area to be 5440 sq ft while the area was much more and included my portion of land not leased to Indian Oil. Hence the lease deed needs to be ratified. Indian Oil appealing to transport commissioner without correcting and ratifying the lease deed amounts to cheating. hout the corrected and ratified lease deed transport commissioner, revenue department and other authorities should reject Indian Oil's appeal for NOC. 2. The Order dated 30.10.2015, by the Honourable Subordinate Court at Kanchipuram in my case 11/2013 prevents Indian Oil from showing/using my portion of land not leased to Indian oil for getting NOC. A copy of the Court order was already submitted during the proceedings on 11. Aug 2016. & 3. Indian oi is not participating in the meetings called for by the transport commissioner despite repeated Intimation. But Indian oil is making me spend my time, energy an¢ money, for their lapses, Hence transport commissioner should consider this as vexation as per the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 4, Indian Oll’s internal notes (3 notes) clearly states that they have made an error in the lease deed with respect to the discrepancy between (a) the area of land mentioned in words in the lease deed due (b) area of land as per diagram attached in the lease deed. Indian Oil internal notes states that lapses from their side started with this error. 5. Indian Oll Haven’t paid rent due to me for the excess portion of land encroached and used by them. The rent runs into several Lakhs of Rupees and is due for the last 9 years from Indian Oil. 6. As an Appellant Authority for the DRO, Kanchipuram Order dated 05.12.2014 cancelling NOC, I kindly request your good self to consider the above facts and reject Indian Oil's Appeal Petition since the lease deed is not corrected and ratified yet. Representation of Thiru.T.Dinesh (Dealer): 1. Twas the dealer of INDIAN OTL CORPORATION LIMITED at Uttiramerur, Kanchipuram District, the Retall Outlet as per lease is 5440 sq. ft., No Objection Certificate for 6498 sq. ft. and was built in violation of the norms in 6756 sq, ft, and most important 2 out of 3 tanks were placed on sand instead of placing tanks in Mat raft Concrete Bed es per the norms of the No Objection Certificate Issued by the District Revenue Officer and Explosives Department resulted in 3 pipe link leaks, 3 fire accident, 4+ holes in the pipe line, tank tilts (placed against Law of Gravitation) and loss of over 8000Its of fuel endangering the public, the recording of loss (3000Its of fuel) in 10.07.2008 inspection report missing from Indian Oil (confirmed vide RTI visit on 17.09.2014 at IOC) ‘only deny the Infrastructure fallure, IOC falled to correct the default. 2. Indian Oll citing the loss of fuel due to tank tilts recorded the reasons agreed upon Resitement of my dealership vide Minutes of Meeting (MoM) dated.30,12.2009 and again National Commission for Scheduled Caste (NCSC) on 11.10.2010 advised Resitement of the dealership both cited tank tilts was rejected, 3. The No Objection Certificate to the retail outlet was cancelled due to lation of Highways norms and land size difference by the District Revenue Officer, Kanchipuram vide order dated.19.09.2011 only after key people in Transport Department intervention, Transport Commissioner & Road Safety Commissioner withou: considering the public safety, without notice to me conducted the proceedings and remitted back to DRO In 2012 within weeks Indian Oll terminated me from my dealership in 2013 (citing failure to sell the committed volume of fuel, I was forced to Violate the Norms, law and Fundamental rights and lose my live for the same defaults), I struggled for 2 years before DRO, who have passed order dated 5.12.2014 denying NOC and recorded. > Against the Safety of Public > Violation of ISI Standerd on Tank & Tank Laying > Violation of Proforma of Certificate of Safety 4. As a whistle blower I bring it to your goodself notice, improper insta of tanks, a violation of No Objection Certificate Norms, tion lation of Petroleum Rules 130, proforma of certificate of safety which can cause devastation to the public of Tamil Nadu, Indian Oil didn’t rectify it and forced a SC dealer to operate in violation for loss, to establish that the pump is fit for operations sales Officer ASR.Sekhar and V.Ramaswamy destroyed the inspection report record for 3,13,000 of supplied fuel, the sales officer is denying his visit and Inspection, thereby placed In danger, forced in violate law and operate even without closing the pipelines which had 4+ holes in it, Indian oil directors paid no attention to correct the Violation on tank laying. It’s not my private battle alone, Safety of the Public, to reveal the truth, Inspection Report is an official, Public record and evidence of the defaults my endeavor to operate the dealership as per Law, safety standards which will ensure the safety of the customers led to termination of my dealership, it's the obligation of the Government got the safety of the public considering all the records. The District Revenue Officer has stated the following remarks on the appeal petition. “During the Issuance of No Objection Certificate a plan for an extent of 6524sq,ft. has been submitted by M/s.Indian Oil Corporation Limited. However the lease deed between M/s.Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Thiru.T.Gobisankar was done for 5440 only. This mistake has already been pointed out during the time of passing the orders of cancellation of No Objection Certificate by the District Revenue Officer vide R.No.45091/M3/2010, dated.19,09.2011. However the Area Correction/ Rectification of lease deed was not corrected by M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited till date”. On perusing the above statements of the Corporation, the land owner and the dealer in detall, I found that the decision taken by the District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram is correct. Hence I uphold the District Revenue Officer's decision in R.No.45091/M3/2010 dated.05.12.2014. Hence, the File R.No.45091/M3/2010 with the Pages from 1 to 556 of the District Revenue Officr, Kancheepuram is retre

    You might also like