a Prneane M uy Proceedings of the District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram District at Kancheepuram. Present: Thiru M, Sambathkumar, B.Se., Re, 45091 /2010/ M3 Dated _5.12.2014. Sub: Petroleum Act and Rules - Kancheepuram District - Uthiramerur Taluk -- Vedapalayam ‘Village - Appeal petition against the proceedings’ of the District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram. District ~ W.P. No. 25006/2012, M.P. No. 1/2012 filed by Sales Manager — Indian Oil Corporation Limited Chennai in the Hon'ble High Court of Madras Judgement received — Hearing conducted by Transport Commissioner on 23.11.2012 and written representation received on 14.11.2012 - remitted back to District. Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram to reconsider — Enquiry conducted -Orders issued: Read: 1) Thiru T. Dinesh, Chennai 14 representation Dated 20.12.2010 2) Indian Oil Corporation Limited letter dated 12.8,2011 3) District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram Proceedings in Re.No. 45091/2010 M3 Dated 19.9.2011 4) Indian Oil Corporation Limited appeal dated 17.10.2011 and 28.1.2012 5) W.P. No. 25006/2012 M.P. No. 1/2012 Dated 21.9.2012 of the Hon'ble High Court of Chennai. 6) Principal Secretary / Transport Commissioner, Transport Department, Chennai.5 Letter No. 26178/M5 / 2012 dated 21.12.2012. 7) O.S. No. 11/2013 filed by Thiru D. Gopisankar in District Munsif Court, Kancheepuram 8) Representation made by Thiru Gopisankar dated 2.1.2013, 21.1,2013, 7.5.2013. 5.11.2014 and 28.11.2014. 9) Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Chennai letter dated 23.1.2013, 12.6.2013, 13.11.2014 and 17.11.2014. 10) Representation made by Thiru T. Dinesh Dated 23.1.2013 and 31.5.2013,29.7.2013, 59.2014, 14.9.2014, 10.11.2014 and 24.10.2014 11) This office Re. No, 45091/2010/M3 dated 23.5.2013, 3.7.2013 13.10.2014, 30.10.2014, 20.11.2014, Order: In the reference Ist read above, Thiru T. Dinesh, residing at No. 2239, AF Block, 6th Street, 11th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai 40 has(48) stated that he is the Dealer of Indian Oil Corporation, Vedapalayam, Uthiramerur Taluk represented for N.O.C. to open a ret ail outlet (Petrol Bunk) which was commissioned at Vedapalayam Village, Uthiramerur Taluk in July 2007 and that the retail-outlet is not under operation from December 2008 due to infrastructure problems and fuel loss of nearly 8,000/- litres and requested to cancel the No.Objection Certificate. The Indian Oil Corporation authorities replied that the complaints on leakage of pipe lines and. non-functioning dispensing units etc. were attended and rectified by them, but the dealer on his own stoppet! operating the petrol pump since November 2008. Further R,Q. construction was done well within the area where N.O.C. was obtained and never exceeded the N.O.C. area, After due process N.O.C. granted in District Collector's Re. 6851/2006U1, dated 7.11.2006 was ordered to be cancelled vide reference 3rd cited due to non functioning of the ebove unit for the last three years and in view of the difference of opinion between the Agency and the dealer (Lease period 2006 to 2026) 2) An appeal was filed by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited vide reference 4th cited. The Appeal peitioner ie. Indian Oil Corporation Limited has been informed to file appeal before the Transport Commissionet, Chennai> ion * 3) The Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager, I.O.C. Limited also approached the Hon'ble High Court and the Writ petition No. 25006/2012 filed against (1) The Goverment of Tamil Nadu represented by its ‘Transport Contimissioner, Chennai (2) The District Collector, Kancheepuram 3) The District Revenue Officer, Kancheeyoram, The Hon'ble High Court has directed as follows: "Jt is seen from the records that the impugned order was passed by the 1st respondent on the ground of 226 days of delays in filing the application. ‘The petitioner has prayed for condoning the delay by saying certain reasons. Further the dismissal of appeal on the grounds of delay, without hearing the petitioner, is violative of the principles of natural justice. Only on the above Said ground, the impugned order is set aside and-the matter is remitted back to the respondent to consider the appeal, including the delay, after hearing the petitioner and to pass order in accordanee with law, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order".4) In the reference 6th cited, the Principal Secretary / Commissioner of Transport, Chenrai 5 has remitted back to the District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram to examine the whole issue afresh and to pass appropriate order. 5) Meanwhile one Thiru Gopisankar (brother of Thiru Dinesh) has filed an .O.S. No., 11/2013 in the Court.of the Subordinate Judge at Kancheepuram against (1) the Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Chennai 18 and (2) The District Revenue’ Officer, Kancheepuram for recovery of possession of 1314 sq. ft. in S.No. 68/7B of Vedapalayam Village, Uthiramerur Taluk of encroached portion utilized for running the retail outlet by the Ist defendant. This case is pending. 6) Based on the records filed by Thiru Dinesh and Thiru Gopisankar personal enquiries with I.O.C.L. have been made on 31.5.2013, 29.7.2013, 27.10.2014, 6.11.2014 and 28.11.2014. 7). Thiru Dinesh has represtnted in'the reference’ 10th citedto prevent issuance of N.O.C. in 5440 sq. fi. at Vedapalayam Village, Uthiramerur Taluk which was utilized by Indian Oil Corporation Earlier 1,0.C. has terminated him from the dealership ‘or not selling committed volume of fuel colluding with Indian Oil and operate the dealership in violation of safety norms and for loss. He also stated that 3 pipe line leaks 3 fire accidents, 4 holes in the pipe line tank tilts and loss of 8,000 litres fuel endangering the public, the recording of loss on 10.7.2008 inspection report is missing from Indian Oil Corporation Limited. 8) During the enquiry Thiru Dinesh has pointed out that he belongs to Social objective category. He also read-out the relevant points made in the written submission.on the. earlier dates in connéction with termination and handing over the retail outlet following the cancellation of N.O.C. Main prayer of the petitioner is that the retail outlet situated at Vedapalayam village, Uthiramerur Taluk is not in operation from December 2008 due to various infrastructure problems resulting in fuel loss which is hazardous and negligence in construction and deviation to that of the approved lay out including encroachment of unlicensed areas of the land owner Shri. T. Gopisankar. The area of R.O. is 5440 sq. ft. but it was found to be 6756 sq.ft. The pipe line leaks are result of tank tilt and need to be relaid. 1.0.C. 495D have terminated the order issued to him without informing him on 19.1.2013. If the units are fully functional till today it is kept open. Because of multiple holes in the pipelines he sustained ‘fuel loss. Hence he surrendered the pipe to Indian Oil Corporation Limited. Indian Oil Corporation Limited objected to relay the Tank. He further stated that Indian Oil Corporation has not given a good pipe line and the area not corrected so far. Road level is higher and hence objecting the issue of No Objection Certificate for the retail outlet, due to violation of Highways norms and the extent of land. 9) Petitioner Thiru T. Dinesh, Dealer, Indian Oil Corporation has repeatedly represented on the following issues. 1) In sufficient frontage as per Highways norms 2) N.0.C. norms violation in tank laying and tank not relaid 3) Lease deed correction 4) Consequent to above Thiru T. Dinesh who was the dealer of 1.0.C. Limited at Uthiramerur further stated that the retail outlet area as per lease is 5440 sq,ft District. Revenue: Officer issued -N.O.C: for 6498 ‘sq; ft: Indian. Oil Corporation encroached the land and built the retail outlet by violating the norms in an atea of 6756 sq: ft. Indian Oil Cotporation’s. violations resulted in the loss of over 8000 liters of fuel endangering the public and inspection report dated 10.7.2008 was missing int the 1.0.C. which amounted to gross mismanagement of Indian Oil Corporation. He prayed that issue of N.O.C to Indian Oil Corporation for Uthiramerur retail outlet to be prevented for the infrastructure failure in 14 months of operation of R.O. pump lay out. 10) As regards Thiru T, Gopisankar, he made an objection to issue N.O.C. for Indian Oil Corporation Limited in respect of Uthiramerur retail outlet since he had léased out lanid in S:No. 68/7B measuring 5440 sq, ft. to LO.C.L. whereas 1.0.C.L. constructed in the area of 6756 sq. ft. and claimed rent after correction and ratification of lease deed plan diagram. Pursuant to this he has filed a O.S. No.11/2013 in the Subordinate Court, Kancheepuram. He also stated that apart from land encroachment the existing infrastructure at the retail outlet violates fuel tank foundation norms and placed the customers and general public in danger since 2008. Further retail outlet cannot be operated at-the site with insufficient frontage. Hence he filed objection petition for issuance of No Objection Certificate, Duringthe enquiry he has also stated that ground water also polluted at present. For any Retail Outlet, 100 feet frontage should be there. This norms has not been followed up by Indian Oil Corporation Limited. Further the road level is higher. 11) The Chief Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited earlier reported that R.O. dealership of Shri T. Dinesh was terminated vide their -Jetter dated 8.1.2013 and the matter was referred to Arbitration. Further the same 1.0.C. dealer repeatedly making references for the following problems 1) Drop in sales potential at ‘Uthiramerur 2) Abnormal variation / stock loss in petroleum products due to suspected pipe line leakage and tilt in tank. 3) The dealer Shri T. Dinesh requested for resitement as a special case or alternatively hand over a COCO for operating a dealer. A meeting was concluded on 12.1.2010 existing site will continue to operate CoCO and IOC will be free to appoint a contractor /' dealer for operating the retail outlet. Further the dealer has requested that before handing over the existing site at Uthiramerur, the tank and pump need to be thoroughly checked and relaid if neoessary so-that there is no problem of shortages faced by; the dealer, 4) On 13.11.2014 the Indian Oil Corporation submitted a report for restoration of N.O.C. on the following grounds. 1) The land admeasuring 5440 sq. ft. of land in S.No. 68/7B, Uthiramerur Main Road, Vedapalyam Village, Uthiramerur Taluk was taken on lease by LO.CL. from Mr. T. Gopisankar by entering lease dated 30.6.2006 subsequently the retail outlet was developed at a cost of Rs. 42 lakhs in the year 2007 and after obtaining all necessary approvals which includes N.O.C. from District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram, the Explosive Department approval and the same was handed over to its dealer Mr. T. Dinesh who is the brother of Mr. T. Gopisankar for operating the retail outlet.. As regards the difference in the area of land taken on lease they have already explained their position in letter dated 12.6.2013 that they are ready to hand over the additional land of 1058 sq. ft to the land owner to Thiru T. Gopisankar. The storage facilities, Tanks, Pumps, building and other permanent structures are within the demarcated of 5440 sq. ft. LO.C.L. has taken all necessary steps to return of the excess land to Mr. T. Gopisankar but he did not come forward for taking over. Further, with regard to non payment of rental and fencing negotiations for additional lands on 20.11.2008 was held but no decision could be arrived at. Hence Mr. Gopisankar agreed to take over the SlRR prt TQ excess land demarcated by LO.C.L. and deputed contractor for fencing. However, Mr. Gopisankar went back on the same. Hence LO.C.L. is not liable to pay rent as-claimed. The R.O. dealership is terminated on 8.1.2013. LO.CLL. proposed to run the R.O, as company. owned company operators COCO Pump to serve the motoring public. 1.0.C.L. has already indicated its willingness to rectify the plan for demarcation of area. The LO.C.L. requested the District Revenue officer to set aside the order dated 19.9.2011 and restore the N.O.C. granted to LO.C.L. to the extent of 5440 sq. ft. of land for which they have valid lease in order.to serve the motoring public and eam revenue to the Government in the interest of natural justice. Further the points raised by Mr: T. Dinesh are the subject matter of ‘Arbitration and the same is pending before the Arbitral Tribunal. Hence LO.CLL. bound by the outcome of Arbitral Award. As far as the issue of N.O.C. is concerned Mr. T. Dintesh is neither the owner of the land nor the N.O.C. is granted in his favour. Hence his representation on any issue may please be set aside. Also heard their counsel representation on 28.11.2014 on the above lines. 12) As pet Rule 150, the N.O.C. gratited under rule 144 shall be liable to be cancelled by the District authorities or the State Government, if the District Authorities or the State Gdvernment is satisfied, that the licensee-has ceased to have any right to use the site for storing petroleum. 13) Where the license suspended by @ licensing authority as an interim measures for violation of any of the provisions of the Act or these rules, or of any condition contained in such licence |and in his opinion such violation is likely to cause imminent danger to the publ 14) Every tank or receptacle for the storage of petroleum in bulk other than a well head tank shall be constructed on iron or steel in accordance with the codes of or specification approved by the Indian Standard Institution or any other code or specifications approved in writing by the Chief Controller. 15) The height of the storage tank shall not be exceeded one and a half time its diameter or 20 meters whichever is less. ‘A certificate of safety in the proforma signed by a competent person, shall be furnished to the licensing authority before any petroleum is stored in an installation or service station for the first time or whenever any additions or alterations to the enclosure wall and embankment or carried out or when any tank is installed or its position shifted., @ 16) The District Revenue Officer at the time of enquiry questioned whether lessee has signed the lease agreement without any verification, for which Thiru Gopisankar replied taat only after six months of execution of lease agreement he found the abive mistake. So far no application from Indian Oil Corporation Limited and running pillar to post for six years. 17). In. this, connection, already a civil case -O.8. 11/2013 in _ subordinate court in, Kancheepuram filed by ‘Thiru T. Gopisankar’ against Indian Oil Corporation Limited with regard to and encroachment by I.0.C. and it is pending. Further Thiru T. Dinesh oppose to issue of N.O.C. to Indian Oil Corporation Limited for retail outlet at Uthiramerur. Further the Indian Oil Corporation Limited in its letter dated 13.11.2014 has stated that the points raised by Mr. T. Dinesh are subject matter of Arbitration and the same is pending before the Arbitral Tribunal. 18) On the part of ‘objection relating to technical terms reconsideration of issue of N.O.C., it was also enquired on other issues arise out of LO.C. dealership, As the District Revenue Officer is confined on the issue of N.O.C,, this forum cannot resolve the dispute between the dealer, land owner and LO.C.L; It-has been explained by the counsel represented LO.C.L. that Thiru Dinesh wants a retail outlet within Chennai and hence creating problems by filing complaints before District Revenue Officer and other authorities, though I.O.C.L. has already cancelled his dealership. With regard to complaint made by Thiru Gopisankar, excess land have been handed over after demarcation and the exact area of 5440 sq, ft. only occupied. Though the approach road is higher they have constructed culvert, so that rain water does not stagnate in the Rétail Outlet, after the approval of LO.C. Engineer. The above issue is pending before Arbitration authority, 19) In the circumstances stated above, I find no valid reasons to alter the orders passed by the then District” Revenue Officer in Re. No. 40591/2010/M3 dated 19.9.2011 and I hereby confirm it as per Petroleum Act 1934 and Petroleum Rules 2002 since the licence granted earlier was cancelled in the reference 3rd cited w/s 150 and 152 (2) in S.No. 68/7B of Vedapalayam Village, Uthiramerur Taluk. ‘The above retail outlet was not functioning for the past 6 years due to the dispute between the lessee and the lessor and also between the dealer and the Company. If Thiru Dinesh and his brother Thiru T. Gopisankar wants to agitate with regard to their other claims they are at liberty to approach appropriate Forum. ‘This forum couldED not decide their other grievance, since the’ District Revenue Officer is only competent authority for the issue relating to No Objection Certificate and not for any other grievances. Appeal against this order lies with the Transport Commissioner, Transport Department, Chennai.5 within 30 (Thirty days) from the date of receipt. Sd./- M. Sambathkumar, District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram. oy order! hho for District KeYenue Officer. Yat To or Thiru T. Dinesh, ; os? V_ No. 2239, AF Block, 6th Street, 11th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai 40 = .. By Regd. Post with Ack. due. Thiru T. Gopisankar, No. 2239, AF Block, 6th Street, P1th Main ‘Road, + Anna Nagar, Chennai 40 The Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Chemnai Division Office, 500, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chenrai -18.. By Read. Post with Ack. due The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kancheepuram. The Tahsildar, Uthiramerur The Principal Secretary / Transport Commissioner, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai.5 for information