' Gul Muhammad khan, J.--The appellant assails through this Intra-Court Appeal, the order dated 7th of July, 1982, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, in Writ Petition No, 974 of 1982.
2. The brief facts leading to it are that the Government of Pakistan granted a licence to the appellant to instal a Petrol Pump at 287-288 kilometers on Lahore Jhang-Bhakkar road, on 21st June, 1981. A No Objection Certificate' as required under the Rules was also issued by the District Magistrate on 23rd August, 1981.
3. Before the appellant could instal a Petrol Pump, the Ministry of Petroleum issued another licence, for a similar purpose, to Messrs Pakistan Burmah Shell Company Ltd. (respondent No, 3) on 14th of July, 1981. The respondent No, 3 then applied for a 'No objection Certificate'. The District Magistrate on 19th of October, 1981, informed the Federal Government that the two licences, issued to the two parties, fell within 3 kilo-meters on the same road.
4. In reply, the Federal Government vide its letter, dated 7th of February, 1982 wrote to the Distirct Magistrate that the second Petrol Pump should not be within three kilometres It appears that the appellant came across some dispute with the land-owners of its licenced site. It, therefore, acquired another site nearby and applied to the District Magistrate for the issuance of 'No Objection Certificate'.
5. The applications of the two grantees were taken up by the District Magistrate on 8th of March, 1982 when he granted the 'No Objection Certificate' to both of them, after verifying that the sites were three kilometres from each other.
6. Feeling aggrieved the appellant filed the writ petition noted above. The respondent No,3 also filed another Writ Petition No,1416/82 assailing the issue of 'No Objection Certificate' with regard to the second site of the appellant. The two petitions came up before a learned Single Judge of this Court on 7th of July, 1982, when, in view of the factual dispute involved, it was directed that the matter should be taken before a Civil Court. It is this order that the appellant has challenged in this appeal.
7. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that according to rule 29 of the Pakistan Petroleum Refining Rules, 1949, as framed under sections 2 and 3 of the Regulation of Mines and Oil Fields and Mineral Development Act, 1948, the conditions mentioned in the licences are to be followed strictly, and therefore, the grant of licence to the respondent No, 3 within three kilo-meters in a rural area was unlawful. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the instructions' dated 7th of April, 1980, placed on the record of the writ petition as Annexure 'D'.
8. It is to be noticed that the only dispute between the parties is with regard to the distance of the two Petrol Pumps. The case of the appellant is that as the 'No Objection Certificate' allowed to him is earlier in time the respondent No,3 could not have been granted a No Objection Certificate' for a site which fell within three kilometres He relied on Annexure, 'C' a letter dated 19th of October, 1981 sent by the District Magistrate, Mianwali to the Government of Pakistan, where the distance between the two is said to be less than three kilometres Reference was also made to letter, dated 7th of February, 1982 (Annexure, 'B') wherein the Federal Government asked the District Magistrate to keep in his view the fact that the second 'No Objection Certificate' is not issued for a Petrol Pump within 3 kilo-meters of the existing Petrol Pump or an existing site.
9. It may be noticed that the first site of the appellant had been changed by it, as the owner had raised some dispute. He, therefore, applied for a 'No Objection Certificate' of another site.
Consequently, the 'No Objection Certificate' for the first site became ineffective. There were, therefore, two applicants for 'No Objection Certificate' on 8th March,1982, when the matter came up before the District Petrol Pump Committee. It is there that the question of distance between the two sites was raised for consideration. Executive Engineer presented a site plan of the two sites to show that the distance was 3 kilometrs. The record produced before us supports that. It was thereafter that the 'No Objection Certificates' were granted to both the applicants.
10. Even if it be considered for the sake of argument that the distance between the two Petrol Pump is less than 3 kilometres the 'No Objection Certificate granted to the appellant is liable to fall under Annexure 'E', already referred to above. As stated earlier, the appellant had renounced his earlier No Objection Certificate' for the first site and approached the District Magistrate for the second one. At that stage, the application of the respondent No,3 was earlier in time. The applications of the two parties were considered and the No Objection Certificates were granted to both of them. The fact that the appellant thereafter moved back to his original site will not give him any preference.
Rather, it will be he, who will be installing a new pump within 3 kilometnesof that of the respondent No,3. Thus, looked at from any angle, the No Objection Certificate' granted to the respondent No,3 does not suffer from any error and, therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.
11. Be that as it may, the dispute between the parties is about a question of fact. The concerned authorities not only were aware of the situation, they even applied their minds to it. The District Magistrate by writing his letter (Annexure 'C') to the Federal Government was quite conscious of it and the Federal Government emphasized its importance in its reply. Consequently, the question was seriously considered in the meeting dated 8th March, 1982 by the District Petrol Pump Committee who came to the conclusion that the distance was not less than 3 kilometrs between the two pumps. In this view of the matter, the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal of the competent jurisdiction cannot be assailed in this Court. Reference be made to the case of Muhammad Hussain Munir (PLD 1974 SC 139).
' For the reasons given above, we do not see any merit in this appeal and dismiss it, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.