Allowed

Sahida v. the District Collector

Kerala HC21 Jun 2011WP(C)/7664/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that existing government norms did not bar the issuance of a No Objection Certificate. It set aside the collector's refusal to grant the certificate to petitioners intending to partner-start a petroleum outlet and directed its immediate issuance.

What did the court decide?

Set aside Ext.P10; directed to issue No Objection Certificate under Rule 144 Petroleum Rules within two weeks for Sy.No.566/1, Chittur Taluk.

Sahida Vs the District Collector — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2011 / 31ST JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 7664 of 2011(G)

¶6

-------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

----------------------

¶9

1. SAHIDA, W/O.SAKHEER HUSSAIN, SHANU MANZIL, THATHAMANGALAM P.O., PALAKKD - 678102.

¶10

2. SURESH S/O.VELAYUDHAN, KAVILKALAM, THATHAMANGALAM P.O., PALAKKAD - 678102.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

------------------------

¶14

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, PALAKKAD - 678001.

¶15

2. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. COCHIN DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR P.O., COCHIN-682036.

¶16

3. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., COCHIN DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR P.O., COCHIN - 682036, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER.

¶17

ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R2-R3 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R2-R3 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R2-R3 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R2-R3 SRI.P.GOPINATH FOR R2-R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

dmb

¶20

WP(C).No.7664 of 2011

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶23

EXT.P1:COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE PROPOSED LAND BY THE SIDE OF THE PUDUNAGARAM-MEENAKSHIPURAM PWD ROAD

¶24

EXT.P2:COPY OF THE LETTER OF INTENT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28.12.2009

¶25

EXT.P3:COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 01.01.2010

¶26

EXT.P4:COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.01.2001 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE TAHSILDAR, CHITTUR

¶27

EXT.P5:COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.04.2010 EXT.P6:COPY OF THE REMINDER SUBMITTED TO SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD DATED 29.4.2010

¶28

EXT.P7:COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.7.2010 EXT.P8:COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.10.2010 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD TO THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KSTP DIVISION, KUTTIPURAM

¶29

EXT.P9:COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE TAHSILDAR, CHITTUR

¶30

EXT.P10:COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.12.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶31

EXT.P11:COPY OF CASH MEMO ISSUED FROM THE PETROLEUM OUTLET AT PUTHUNAGARAM

¶32

EXT.P12:COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 9.02.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶33

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:-

¶34

EXT.R2(a):COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD DATED 17.02.2010

¶35

EXT.R2(b):COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE PETROLEUM RULES, 2002

¶36

EXT.R2(c):COPY OF THE GUIDELINES DATED 25.02.2008 ISSUED BY THE PESO TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR

¶37

EXT.R2(d):COPY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT'S REMINDER ISSUED TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 06.10.2010

¶38

EXT.R2(e):COPY OF THE NORMS NO.16066/D3/09/F&CSD DATED 17.09.2009 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶39

//TRUE COPY//

¶40

P.A TO JUDGE

¶41

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶42

W.P.(C)No. 7664 OF 2011

¶43

Dated this the 21^st day of June, 2011

¶44

J U D G M E N T

¶45

Petitioners, who are intending to start a new petroleum retail outlet in partnership stand selected in this regard, pursuant to the application made before the concerned authorities. However, in spite of satisfying all the requirements, the requisite 'No Objection Certificate' under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, was not issued by the first respondent / District Collector, who on the other hand, issued Ext.P10 communication dated 10.12.2010 informing the second respondent that, no 'No Objection Certificate' can be issued and that issuance of such 'No Objection Certificate' can only be in tune with the norms presented by the State with reference to the minimum sale output of 250 Kilo Liters per month.

¶46

Heard the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent as well.

¶47

During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the issue is squarely covered by judgment dated 23.05.2011 passed by this Court in W.P(C)

¶48

W.P.(C).No.7664 OF 2011

¶49

¶50

No.1016 of 2010 and connected cases, whereby the challenge raised against the norms stated as fixed by the Government has been upheld. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner in the above background, is having every right to have the 'No Objection Certificate' and to start the proposed petroleum retail outlet.

¶51

In the above circumstances, this Court finds that Ext.P10 issued by the first respondent is not sustainable any more. The same is set aside and the first respondent is directed to issue 'No Objection Certificate' under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 enabling the petitioner to start the proposed petroleum retail outlet in Sy.No.566/1 in Chittur Taluk of Palakkad District forthwith, if the proceedings filed are otherwise in order. Appropriate orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 'two weeks' from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the first respondent.

¶52

Writ petition is disposed of.

¶53

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶54

dmb

Sahida v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahida v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shamsheer Ahmad Vs Manoj

C.Mary Vs State of Kerala

V.K.Shaji Vs Indian Oil Corporation

K.F.Noushad Vs the Dist. Collector, Alappuzha and Othes

A.K.Moideen Kutty and Another Vs the Manager, Canara Bank and Others

Tinto Mathew Vs Union of India and 2 Others