A.K. MATHUR, J.
(1.) This is a Letter Patent Appeal directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 2-12-1998 in Writ Petition No. 3337 of 1998 whereby the learned single Judge has allowed the petition and quashed the order of the Collector, Raipur dated 3rd June, 1996 (Annexure-P11).
(2) Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that there is a petrol pump in the city of Raipur situated at G.E. Road, Civil Lines on Nazul Plot No. 17/57 in Block No. 15, measuring 42,417 square feet held on a lease granted by the respondent No. 1- State of Madhya Pradesh in favour of one late Shri Inder Singh. The lease was granted in 1963. A portion of the leased plot measuring 30,800 sq. ft. was left out by Inder Singh for M/s. Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Company by a registered lease deed which succeeded by the present petitioner i.e. M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. Under the said sub-lease, the petitioner-M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited has been operating the petrol pump through its dealer for the last 30 years. The original lease holder Inder Singh died in 1968 leaving behind two heirs S/Shri Tara Singh and Gurmail Singh who filed a civil suit bearing C.S. No. 17-A of 1983 in the Civil Court for eviction of the petitioner-Company as they were lessee of the suit plot. This lease was renewed up to 31-3-1992. Thereafter, the heirs of the original lease-holder executed a sale deed in the year 1993 transferring the plot to respondents 10 to 12. On the basis of the sale deed, the respondents 10 to 12 were recorded as the lease-holders.
(3) On 5-12-1995, an unfortunate incident took place when a tanker brought for unloading the petroleum product in the Petrol Pump caught fire and that fire created a great panic in whole of the Civil Lines area as well as in the city. Though the fire was controlled but still it damaged some property and caused burn injuries to the drivers of the vehicle. It is alleged that on account of this fire incident, the respondents 3 to 12 who were keen to seek eviction of the petitioner-Company from the plot highlighted and exaggerated the incident through media and by mobilising the public support for shifting the petrol pump to avoid any hazard to traffic, public safety and property. It is alleged that on account of the pendency of the eviction suit as the respondent were interested in getting the petitioner-Company evicted, a Public Interest Litigation was filed before the High Court which was registered as W.P. No. 4263 of 1995 highlighting the loca-tion of the present petrol pump being dangerous to the public at large. Hence, the Division Bench of this Court , after hearing the parties, directed the District Administration to appoint a proper Committee and go into the question whether it would be advisable to keep the Petrol Pump at present site or not and whether it is likely to be hazardous to the public safety or not. Pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 27-2-1996 in W.P. No. 4 263 of 1995, a Committee was appointed by the Collector to go into the matter. The direction given by this Court by order dated 27-2-1996 reads as under :
"Shri Gupta, Addl. A.G. submits that no decision has been taken by the Collector because of the pendency of this petition before this Court. Be that as it may, the fact remains that this petrol
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ump is located in the thickly populated area; therefore, it has to be ensured that it is safe to continue this petrol pump. Looking to the incident which took place on 5-12-1995 when this petrol pump caught fire, it has become more desirable to see that it is a safe location or not. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that the Collector, Raipur shall consider whether it is safe to permit the continuation of the present petrol pump of respondent No. 8 at this location. Similarly, the respondent No. 4 Chief Controller of Explosives, Government of India, Nagpur or his nominee may also examine the matter that whether it is safe to continue this petrol pump at this location or not. Both the authorities shall examine the safety of the people around that area and thereafter pass a proper order after hearing the petitioners No. 2 and 6 viz. Ravinder Singh Sando and Deepak Awan as well as the respondents Nos. 5, 6 and 8.The authorities shall decide the matter within one month as far as possible. This petition is disposed of with above observations."The Committee appointed by the Collector consisted of Additional District Magistrate, City Superintendent of Police (Traffic) and Superintendent of Fire Brigade, Municipal Corporation, Raipur and a representative of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation, Branch Raipur. The Committee inspected the site and submitted a report Annexure-P13 which reads as under :"INSPECTION REPORT(1) Pursuant to the directions contained in Order No. A/Food/96, dated 22-4-1996 passed by the Collector, Raipur, the undersigned members of the Committee conducted spot inspection of the site of Diamond Service Station pump with a view to find out whether or not to allow the said petrol pump to restart at the same location.(2) Joint Chief Controller of Explosives had vide its Order No. B.1 (1)/137/CC/18, dated 17-4-1996, found that the site of Diamond Service Station petrol pump is safe for the distribution of petroleum products. There is no objection to it.(3) According to the opinion of the representative of M/s. Bharat Petroleum CorporationLimited, the said petrol pump complies with the safety rules and norms and as such from the viewpoint of safe running of the said petrol pump the same site is not unsafe.(4) Since the Diamond Service Station/Petrol Pump is situated along side national highway and keeping in view the traffic hazards it is necessary to shift the said petrol pump to some other site. For this, sufficient time should be given to them."(4) So far as the explosive aspect is concerned, the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives sent his report that the present Diamond Service Station/ Petrol Pump is safe and there is no objection to it. The representative of Bharat Petroleum Corporation submitted that the Petrol Pump complies with the safety rules and from the point of safety, the site is not unsafe. However, the Committee further observed that since Diamond Service Station is situated alongside national highway and keeping in view the traffic hazards, it is necessary to shift the said petrol pump to some other site and for this sufficient time should be given to them. This report was submitted to the Collector and the Collector heard the parties. After hearing all the parties and examining the matter from various angles, the Collector came to the conclusion that it would be advisable to shift this petrol pump to some other site as it is not safe to allow the petrol pump to re-start functioning at the same site. The operative portion of the order passed by the Collector on 3rd June, 1996 reads as under :"8. In accordance with the directions given by the Hon. High Court and after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties and after carefully scrutinizing and examining the written submissions filed by them, I reach a conclusion that from the standpoint of the future safety of the lives and property of the inhabitants of the locality and also keeping in view the fact that the owner of the said petrol pump had himself demanded shifting of the said petrol pump and also having regard to the fact that the lease of the land has already expired, it is not safe to allow the said petrol pump to re-start functioning at the same site. The respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 8 may if considered proper shift that said petrol pump to some other suitable site after obtaining the necessary permission as per law and to carry on their business at the new site."This order came to be challenged by the petitioner M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited in the writ petition. The learned single Judge after considering the matter came to the conclusion that so far as hazard to lives and property of the residents is concerned, the Chief Controller of Explosives has certified that it is not unsafe. Learned single Judge further observed that the present petrol pump is away from the national highway i.e. 61'; therefore, there is sufficient space for ingress and egress of the vehicles. It was also held that only on the ground of one incident, it is not possible to uphold the order of the Collector specially when Explosive Expert has held that it is not unsafe to keep the petrol pump at the present site. Accordingly, the learned single Judge quashed the order of the Collector dated 3rd June, 1996. Hence, the present appeal has been filed by the respondent No. 4.(5) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in view of the fact that the Committee appointed by the Collector has recommended that the location of the Petrol Pump is going to cause traffic hazard, it is necessary to shift the petrol pump to some other site, it shows that the representative of the petitioner M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Raipur also acceded to the recommendations of the Committee as he was one of the signatories to the report to the effect that the petrol pump should be shifted to some other site. It is alleged that since the representative of the petitioner was the signatory to this very report and party to the finding that the traffic hazard exists at the present place, therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to have filed this petition and challenged their own acquiscence for shifting the petrol pump from the present site. Learned counsel took pains to submit that once a party had acceded to the recommendations of the Committee with regard to change of site, then it cannot approbate and reprobate. Hence, the petition filed by M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited is totally misconceived and deserves to be dismissed on that count alone. Learned counsel also submitted that at one stage, M/s. Diamond Petrol Pump - a dealer of the petitioner-Corporation, had also requested for re-siting of the petrol pump. The learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that in an identical case of one Shukla Petrol Pump, which was also located at this very highway was shifted on this very gro-und that it was causing traffic hazard and it was shifted. In the case of the petitioner also, when it was recorded by the Collector that the petrol pump was going to cause traffic hazard, the petitioner-Corporation is taking an inconsistent stand when similarly situated petrol pump i.e. Shukla Petrol Pump was got shifted on the ground of traffic hazard.(6) As against this, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment of the learned single Judge. Learned counsel Shri Kale submitted that in fact the report of the Committee appointed by the Collector is not an agreement of the representative of the petitioner-Corporation who is one of the signatories to the report. He further submitted that even the Collector while passing detailed order did not utilise that report for the purpose of reciting the petrol pump. Learned counsel further submitted that in fact the issue with regard to traffic hazard was never raised for shifting the petrol pump, but unfortunately the traffic hazard has surreptitiously entered into the mind of the Collector and the Collector has taken it as one of the grounds for shifting the petrol pump.(7) Before we refer to the rival submissions made by the parties, it may be relevant to refer to the certain provisions of the Act and Rules having bearing on the subject. The Petroleum Act, 1934 deals with the grant of petroleum licence and in pursuance of this Act, Rules have been framed, known as the Petroleum Rules, 1976. Primarily we are concerned with Rule 141 which deals with the grant of licence. Rule 141 says that the petroleum licence will be granted by the licencing authority as set out in the form specified in the first Schedule. Rule 142 of the Rules of 1976 deals with the period of licence. It says that a licence can be granted for one year and it will be subject to renewal. Rule 144 says that before the licensing authority i.e. Chief Controller or the Controller of Explosives grants a licences the licensee shall apply to the district authority for his 'no objection certificate'. After no objection certificate is granted by the District Authority, the Chief Controller or Controller of Explosives will process the application. However, sub-rule (4) of Rule 144 says that if the district authority, either on a reference being made to him otherwise, intimates to the Chief Controller or the Controller of Explosives, as the case may be, that any licence which has been applied for should not, in his opinion, be granted, such licence shall not be issued without the sanction of the Central Government. Rule 144 which is relevant having bearing on the subject reads as under : "144. No objection certificate ;(1) Where the licensing authority is the Chief Controller or the Controller of Explosives, as the case may be, an applicant for a new licence other than a licence in Form III, IX, XV, or XVI shall apply to the District Authority with two copies of the site place showing the location of the premises proposed to be licensed for a certificate to the effect that there is no objection to the applicant receiving a licence for the site proposed and the District Authority shall, if he sees no objection, grant such certificate to the applicant who shall forward it to the licensing authority with his application Form VIII.(2) Every certificate issued by the District Authority under sub-rule (1) shall be accompanied by a copy of the plan of the proposed site duly endorsed by him under his official seal.(3) The Chief Controller or the Controller of Explosives, as may be, may refer an application not accompanied by certificate granted under sub-rule (1) to the District Authority for his observations.(4) If the District Authority, either on a reference being made to him or otherwise, intimates, to the Chief Controller or the Controller of Explosives, as the case may be, that any licence which has been applied for should not, in his opinion, be granted, such licence shall not be issued without the sanction of the Central Government."It may be emphasised here that grant of no objection certificate by the District Authority has a very important role in the matter. If the District Authority feels that the grant of licence will not be advisable, then the Chief Controller or the Controller of Explosives cannot grant the licence unless it is sanctioned by the Central Government. In sum total, the grant of no objection certificate by the District Authority is a sine qua non for grant of a licence. If the licence is refused, then a speaking order has to be passed. We are not concerned with that.(8) Rule 151 of the Rules deals with cancellation of no objection certificate. It says that the authority which granted no objection certificate i.e. District Authority or the State can also cancel it, if the district authority or the State Government, as the case may be, is satisfied that the licence is ceased to have any right to use the site for storing petroleum. However, it is subject to proviso which says that before cancelling a no objection certificate, the licencee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It further makes it incumbent on the District Authority or the State Government that they shall pass a reasoned order for such cancellation. Rule 151 deals with suspension and cancellation of licence. Rule 151 reads thus :"151. Suspension and cancellation of licence -(1) Every licence granted under these rules shall -(i) stand cancelled, if the licensee ceases to have any right to the site for storing petroleum;(ii) stand cancelled, if the no objection certificate is cancelled by the District Authority or the State Government in accordance with sub-rule (i) of Rule 151;(iii) be liable to be suspended or cancelled by an order of the licensing authority for any contravention of the Act or of any rule thereunder or of any condition contained in such licence, or by order of the Central Government if it is satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for doing so;Provided that -(a) before suspending or cancelling a licence under this rule, the holder of the licence shall be given an opportunity of being heard;(b) the maximum period of suspension shall not exceed three months; and (c) the suspension of a licence shall not debar the holder of the licence from applying for its renewal in accordance with the provisions of Rule 149.(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), an opportunity of being heard may not be given to the holder of a licence before his licence is suspended or cancelled in cases -(a) where the licence is suspended by a licensing authority as an interim measure for violation of any of the provisions of the Act or these rules, or of any conditions contained in such licence and in his opinion such violation is likely to cause imminent danger to the public :Provided that where a licence is so suspended, the licensing authority shall give the holder of the licence an opportunity of being heard before the order of suspension is confirmed; or(b) where the licence is suspended or cancelled by the Central Government if that Government considers that in the public interest or in the interest of the security of the State such opportunity should not be given.(3) A licensing authority or the Central Government suspending or cancelling a licence under sub-rule (1), shall record its reasons for so doing in writing." Rule 155 of the Rules of 1976 deals with appeals. Rule 155 reads as under :"155. Appeals: An appeal shall lie against any order refusing to grant, amend or renew a licence cancelling or suspending a licence to;(i) the Central Government, where the order is passed by the Chief Controller;(ii) the Chief Controller, if the order is passed by a Controller of Explosives;(iii) ............(iv) the immediate official superior to the district authority, if the order passed by the District Authority.(v) the immediate official superior to officer appointed under Rule 33 in the case of vessels licensed for the carriage of petroleum in bulk.(2) An appeal against any order of the District Authority refusing to grant or cancelling a no objection certificate shall lie to the authority which is immediately superior to the said District Authority.(3) Every appeal shall be in writing and shall be accompanied by a copy of the order appealed against and shall be presented within sixty days of the order passed."(9) In the background of the provisions of the Rules of 1976, Shri Ray, learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that once an order has been passed on the basis of admission made by the parties, then it is not open to the said party to go back from that commitment. Learned counsel has submitted that once a joint Committee to which representative of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation was also a party and had agreed that the present site of the petrol pump should be shifted and for that some time should be given, then in that case, it is not open for them to approbate and reprobate. Learned counsel invited our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim Khan v. State of M.P., (1979) 4 SCC 458 : (AIR 1980 SC 517), wherein the question was with regard to grant of a cinema licence under the M.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1952. It was observed that if the party has not objected at initial stage to the grant of no objection certificate in respect of the site for cinema, then he is not entitled to object at a subsequent stage to the renewal of grant of cinema licence. This was a concurring judgment delivered b Hon. D.A. Desai, J. and Hon. R.S. Pathak, J. Hon. Pathak, J. while concurring with Hon. Desai, J. observed thus :"Inasmuch as the grounds pleaded by the appellants to oppose the grant of cinema licence were available to them during the proceedings for considering the grant of a 'no objection' certificate and they cannot now be permitted to plead a right to oppose the grant of a cinema licence."On the same analogy, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when the represen-tative of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited who was a party to the recommen-dations of the Committee had agreed that the present site of the petrol pump should be shifted and for that sufficient time should be given for relocating the petrol pump, the Corporation cannot go back. It is submitted that neither the representative of the petitioner-Corporation dissented to the report nor protested before the Collector when the report was placed before him that the location should not be shifted on account of traffic hazard, nor even in the petition the issue was joined that the representative of the petitioner Corporation did not agree for shifting of the site due to traffic hazard. If the petitioner Corporation's representative had protested as a member of the Committee and had recorded his dissent, perhaps it would have been possible for the petitioner Corporation to argue that at the first stage they protested. But there is no dissent having been recorded during the spot inspection nor before the Collector when the matter was heard by him. At that stage, if the petitioner Corporation had protested that the petrol pump should not be shifted on account of traffic hazard, then it would have been possible for them to have joined the issue before us. It is not the case of the Corporation that they were not heard by the Collector.(10) Shri Kale, learned counsel for the petitioner (respondent No. 1) strongly protested that the traffic point has not been a factor taken into consideration by the Collector for shifting of the petrol pump. The learned counsel has specifically read out the penultimate paragraph of the order of the Collector, which is reproduced above, that three points namely, safety of lives and property of the locality, the lease had expired and the owner of the petrol pump has also requested shifting of the petrol pump from the present site. Learned counsel submitted that the traffic issue is no basis for shifting the petrol pump and unfortunately it has surreptitiously entered into the consideration wherein it was not a ground for shifting of the petrol pump. It is true that the submission of Shri Kale, learned counsel for the petitioner, is not without any basis, but at the same time if the order of the Collector is examined as a whole, it appears that the Collector has very categorically recorded in his order in paragraph 7 that taking into consideration all arguments, he had taken into consideration the report submitted by the Committee which consisted of the representative of the petitioner Corporation as well as representative of the District Authority i.e. A.D.M., C.S.P. and the Superintendent of the Fire Brigade of the Municipal Corporation, and if the District Administration feels in this whole background that shifting of petrol pump is necessary from the point of view of public safety, be it traffic hazard or hazard to public property and lives of people, then it can not be said that it was not actuated with the public consideration. In paragraph 8 of the order of the Collector, traffic does not find mention but it was in the mind of the Collector that the Committee had recommended that the petrol pump should be shifted. The Collector also high lighted that devastating fire accident which occurred at the site of the petrol pump and he has observed that in order to avoid such occurrence in future , the petrol pump should be relocated away from the national highway. We have to take over-all picture and if we read the order of the Collector as whole, then it appears that the Collector was mindful of traffic angle also though he has not mentioned in penultimate paragraph. But reading of the order of the Collector shows that the Collector was actuated with bona fide public consideration.(11) It is true that the location of such a petrol pump in the heart of the city is always a hazardous and the sight of smoke bellowing over the horizon of the city presents a ghastly scene created during fire accidents at petrol pump. It does create a sense of horror in the mind of residents of locality. Hence, it can not be said that the District Administration, if feels, that the location of such petrol pump in a thickly populated area should be shifted being hazardous to the safety of the people and the property, then they are within their right to suggest relocation of the said petrol pump to some other site. These are relevant considerations and it is the responsibility of the District Administration to see that the safety of the people is not exposed to such danger of inflammable and highly explosive substance. In fact, the grant of no objection certificate under sub-rule (4) of Rule 144 of the Rules of 1976 is sine qua non for the grant of licence. If the District Administration feels that location of the petrol pump will not be conducive and congenial to the public at large, then it is within its right not to grant no objection certificate. Similarly the authority which grants licence can revoke the licence also on relevant considerations and relevant considerations in the matter of grant of no objection certificate are always safety of the people and the property which is primarily the duty of the administration. It may be that the Explosive Experts feel that it is not hazardous from their point of view but the District Administration can still feel that notwithstanding all precautions being taken for safety in accordance with the rules but still ghastly site has shaken the confidence of the people, then this could be one of the relevant considerations for advising relocation of the petrol pump.In this connection, it may not be out of place to mention the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Yogesh Kumar v. Bharat Petroleum CorporationLimited, AIR 1990 SC 2216 where their Lordships have interpreted Rule 144 read with Rule 151 of the Rules of 1976 and it was observed that -"On a reading of sub-rule (1) of R. 151 it is clear that a 'no objection certificate' granted under R. 144 can be cancelled wherever the licensee ceases to have any right to sue the site for storing petrol and that right could be lost by a licensee either by his tenancy or right to the use of the site coming to an end or for any other reason whereby, in law, the right to use the site for storing petrol ceases."Their Lordships while interpreting sub-rule (1) of Rule 151 with R. 144 have observed that if the site has been rendered dangerous for any other reason, then in that case, the District Administration can exercise their jurisdiction advising re-location of the petrol pump.(12) Shri Ray, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that traffic is a very relevant con-sideration and it can not be rejected outrightly. In this connection, he also invited our attention to a decision in London Country Council v. Cutts (1961) 1 All ER 600. This was a case for establishment of a petrol filing station at the Studdridge Street and the permission was refused because of the obstruction to the traffic. In that case, the respondents opposed to establish the petrol pump on the site of Star Cinema, Wandsworth Bridge Road, Fulham and at the intersection of a number of roads. The local authority refused to give consent under the London Country Council (General Powers) Act, 1933. Section 69(1) provides that such consent shall not be refused unless in the opinion of the local authority the petroleum filling station established would cause obstruction to traffic. It is true that there was a special provision under the Act of 1933 but nonetheless, it is an important consideration while granting licence for petrol pump. The location of a petrol pump on a road side can prove hazardous, therefore, the traffic angle is an important consideration which has to be taken into account by the district authorities. It can not be exhaustively enumerated as to what considerations the district authority should take into consideration at the time of granting no objection certificate, but there could be some which are relevant, like area is a thickly populated, hospital, educational institutions as well as traffic. These are some of the factors which can be taken into consideration by the district authorities. But to say that the traffic angle is wholly irrelevant is far from true. It is true that this pump was established about 30 years back when population of Raipur was very less but with the passage of time, the population of Raipur has increased tremendously and the present site has come almost in the heart of the city. Therefore, it is legitimate for the inhabitants living around that area for purposes of their safety to see whether the continuation of the petrol pump would be conducive to the public safety at large or not. In fact, when the Public Interest Litigation was filed before this Court, the Court directed the Collector to examine the matter from the safety point of view and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. The Collector in pursuance of the direction given by this Court constituted a Committee which accordingly made its recommendations. Though the explosive expert found that from explosive point of view there is no harm but nonetheless the Committee observed that it is going to be traffic hazard and advised re-location of the petrol pump and for that sufficient time was advised. It cannot therefore be said that the traffic angle examined by the Committee was an irrelevant consideration. It is true that the Collector in his order has only said with regard to the safety of public and property. When he talks about the public, it pre supposes that the traffic hazard is one of the parts of the safety. Hence, it can not be said that the Collector was not conscious of the safety of the people from traffic point of view, Though the Collector has given two more reasons - one that at appropriate time, the petrol pump dealer himself did make a request to the Bharat Petroleum CorporationLimited on the ground that the sale has gone down as the national highway has been diverted but that was not a reason for the district authority to take into consideration. Shri Tankha learned counsel for the respondent No. 13 submits that the respondent did not press this application. Be that as it may, at one point of time, the request was made that the petrol pump should be shifted but subsequently it was not pressed. Secondly, the Collector has also recorded that the period of lease has expired for which it is alleged that litigation has already been initiated. But the factum of expiry of lease is not disputed. It is a different thing that it may be renewed but it can not be said that the lease has expired and now renewal has been granted. Therefore, all these reasons given by the Collector for arriving his conclusion for re-location of petrol pump can not be said to be irrelevant. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in fact no action has been initiated under the Land Revenue Code for eviction of the lessee. That may be so , but suffice it to say that it is a relevant factor and the Collector has not gone wrong on that part.(13) Our attention is also invited to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Tata Cellular v. Union of India , (1994) 6 SCC 651 : (AIR 1996 SC 11). In this case, their Lordships have held that the Court can only interfere with the decision making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is observed that the merit of decision is not reviewable as the Court does not sit as a Court of appeal while exercising powers of judicial review. It is also observed that the Court can not interfere with the Government freedom of contract, invitation of tender and refusal of any tender which pertains to policy matter. It can only interfere if the decision or action is vitiated by arbitrariness, unfairness, illegality, irrationality of when it is found that the decision is such as no reasonable person on proper application of mind could have taken. It was further held that the Court will not substitute its opinion to that of an expert. Therefore, the parameters of interference of judicial review of administrative action have been circumspected by so many factors. It is observed -"Judicial quest in administrative matters has been to find the right balance between the administrative discretion to decide matters whether contractual or political in nature or issues of social policy, thus they are not essentially justiciable and the need to remedy any unfairness. Such an unfairness is set right by judicial review."(14) In the present case, the Collector after hearing the affected parties arrived at the conclusion that it is not conducive to public interest to allow the present petrol pump to function at the present location. The Collector, keeping in view the recommendations of the Committee appointed by him in pursuance of direction given by this Court felt persuaded to remove the petrol pump from the present site to be re-located at different site in the interest of public. This decision of the Collector can not be said to suffer from any arbitrariness, unfairness or by any illegality.(15) As a result of above analysis, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned single Judge does not appear to be correct. Consequently, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 2-12-1998 and dismiss the petition. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.
"1999 AIR (MP) 156"