1 2025:CGHC:7517 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4386 of 2019 • Abhishek Kedia S/o Shri Vijay Kedia Aged About 28 Years R/o Masjid Road , Tehsil And P.S. Akaltara, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1. The Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Authority/Collector, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3. Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manger Raipur Divisional Office, Indian Oil Corporation, Office Address Indian Oil Bhawan, Rajiv Gandhi Marg, VIP Road Telibandha, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Ashok Kumar Mandal S/o Late Shri Rajeshwar Prasad Mandal R/o FSI Road, Tarbahar, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Rajkumar Sahu, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate For Respondents 1 & 2/State For Respondent No. 3 For Respondent No. 4 : : : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Panel Lawyer\ Mr. Parth Shrivastava, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate None Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 12/02/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2 “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 15.11.2019 (ANNEXURE P/1) passed by the respondent no. 1, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as if may deem fit and appropriate. 10.3 Cost of the petition may also be given.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Commissioner, Division Bilaspur, Bilaspur exceeded its jurisdiction while deciding the revision under Section 50 of the CG. Land Revenue Code, 1959 and Section 16 of the CG. Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Oil (Licensing and Control) Order, 1980. He would contend that the issue is no more res integra and in the matter of Rishabh Agrawal Vs. The Commissioner Bilaspur Division & Others decided on 23/10/2019 in WPC No. 3634/2019, a similar order passed by the Commissioner has been quashed. 3. On the other, learned counsel for the State/respondents No. 1 and 2 would oppose the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 would not oppose the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. In the present case, the Commissioner while exercising power under Section 50 of the CG. Land Revenue Code, 1959 and Section 16 of the CG. Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Oil (Licensing and Control) Order, 1980 stayed the execution of NOC granted by the District Magistrate in favour of the petitioner. 3 7. In the matter of Rishabh Agrawal (supra), the coordinate bench in paras- 7, 8 and 9 held as under:- “7. Perusal of the impugned order would show that it has been entertained as an appeal under Order 16 of the Order of 1980. For ready reference the order 16 of the Order of 1980 is reproduced herein under: “16. Appeal. (1) Any person aggrieved by any order of the licensing authority refusing to grant, reissue or renew a licence or cancelling or suspending a licence or forfeiting the security deposited by the licensee under the provisions of this order, may appeal to the Commissioner or Additional Commissioner of the Division within 30 days of the date of the receipt by him of the order of the licensing authority.” 8. It would be relevant at this juncture to appreciate the fact that the Order of 1980 is primarily in respect of granting of license to a dealer in Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel. The order 16 clearly reflects that an appeal under Order 16 would lie only against the order of the Licensing Authority under the provisions of this Order of 1980. Granting of NOC or the proceedings drawn by the SDM were not under the provisions of the Order of 1980, but were on the provisions of the Petroleum Act of 1934 and the Petroleum Rules of 2002. 9. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, all that this Court has to decide is whether the appeal of the respondent No.3 was maintainable before the Commissioner, Bilaspur division or not and whether the Commissioner had the jurisdiction to decide an appeal against an order not under the Order of 1980.” 8. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts and the observation made in the matter of Rishabh Agrawal (supra), the order dated 15.11.2019 (Annexure P-1) is hereby set-aside/quashed. 9. The authority concerned would be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings strictly in accordance with law. 10. With the aforesaid observation(s) / direction(s), the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti