Disposed

A.Vijayakumari v. Thge District Collector, Kannur

Kerala HC28 Nov 2013WP(C)/24775/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner challenged an order rejecting her application for a new petrol outlet. The appellate order was recalled by authorities invoking the Supreme Court and this Court's earlier directives, and the petition was disposed of without further proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of whereby it was held that no further proceedings were necessary against the concerned officer.

A.Vijayakumari Vs Thge District Collector, Kannur — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 24775 of 2013 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

A.VIJAYAKUMARI, JYOTHIS, M.G.ROAD, KALLOOR, MATTANNOOR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN:670 702.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.V.C.JAMES SRI.SEBASTIAN JOSEPH (KURISUMMOOTTIL)

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND MAGISTRATE, CIVIL STATION, KANNUR, PIN:670 700.

¶11

2. THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER, KOZHIKODE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, IIND FLOOR, PMK TOWERS, CIVIL STATION (POST), WAYANAD ROAD, KOCHIKODE-673 121.

¶12

R1 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR SRI.C.S.DIAS

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

sts

¶15

WP(C).No. 24775 of 2013 (V)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF INTENT ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 16.6.2011. EXHIBIT P2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 30.5.2011 BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.7.2013 IN WPC NO.18807/2013. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED (NIL) NO.REF.2011/25022/13/D4 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE. EXHIBIT P5: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.2.2013 IN C.A.NOS.2784-92/2013 OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.

¶19

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO.JUDGE

sts

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶24

¶25

W.P.(c) No.24775 OF 2013

¶26

¶27

Dated this the 28^th day of November, 2013

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following

¶30

prayers :

¶31

“i) to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading upto the issuance of Ext.P4 and quash the same.

¶32

ii) issue a direction to the first respondent to reconsider Ext.P2 application in the light of the judgmetn in Sheena Prakash v. Union of India, reported in 2013 (3) KLT SN 115 ( C.No.120) forthwith: and

¶33

iii) to grant such other order or direction which this Honourable Court would deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶34

When the matter came up for consideration before this

¶35

Court on 9.10.2013, the following order was passed.

¶36

“Going through the contents of the materials on record, it is seen that Ext.P4 order has been passed by the Additional District Magistrate, after referring to Ext.P3 judgment passed by this Court, to have the matter considered in a particular manner after hearing

¶37

W.P.(C)No.24775/2013

¶38

¶39

and also with reference to the verdict passed by the Supreme court with regard to the issue.

¶40

However, there is absolutely no discussion in Ext.P4, while rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner. The matter requires serious consideration for having ignored the direction given by this Court as well as by the Apex Court, while finalising the matter.

¶41

The learned Government Pleader is required to get instructions and to file an affidavit by the concerned officer, who passed Ext.P4, as to the sequence of events and as to the understanding of the directions given by this Court and that of the Supreme Court.

¶42

Post after two weeks.”

¶43

Pursuant to the above order, an affidavit has been filed by the Additional District Magistrate pointing out that Ext.P4 order impugned in the writ petition was passed by virtue of an inadvertent mistake and has expressed unconditional apology for having not referred to the verdict passed by this Court and also by the Apex Court with regard to the issue involved. Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 are relevant, which are extracted below :

¶44

“ 3. It is hereby submitted that the Ext.P4 order was passed without looking into

¶45

W.P.(C)No.24775/2013

¶46

¶47

the specific directions given by this Honourable Court vide judgment dated 30.07.2013 in W.P. (C)No.1807/2013 and the order of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in CA 27842792/13 dated 02.04.2013. I have only considered the report submitted by the District Supply Officer, Kannur to the effect that the sanctioning of new Petroleum Retail Outlet will considerably affect the business of the nearby Petroleum Retail outlets. I tender my unconditional apology in not considering the directions issued by this Honourable Court as well as the Honourable Supreme Court of India. The above mistake was occurred due to an oversight and it is prayed to grant pardon for the above mistake.

¶48

4. It is respectfully submitted that on noting the above mistake and the directions issued by this Honourable Court on 09.10.2013, the entire file was placed before the first respondent for consideration. After verification the 1^st respondent passed an order dated 13.11.2013 by cancelling Ext.P4 order and decided to pass fresh orders by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the Divisional Sales Manager of Indian Oil Corporation, Kozhikode. The fresh hearing was posted on 16.11.2013. Anyhow petitioner could not be attend the hearing on said date and hence the hearing adjourned on 23.11.2013 at

¶49

W.P.(C)No.24775/2013

¶50

¶51

4 p.m. by respondent No.1.”

¶52

The learned Government Pleader submits that, in the course

¶53

of further steps, Ext.P4 order has already been recalled and an opportunity of hearing was given by the District Collector and the hearing was conducted on 23.11.2013. It is stated that the proceedings will be finalised within the shortest possible time.

¶54

In the said circumstances, this Court finds that no further proceedings are necessary to be pursued against the concerned officer, and the writ petition is disposed of, recording the submission made by the learned Government Pleader with reference to the contents of the affidavit dated 20.11.2013 filed by the Additional District Magistrate.

¶55

The proceedings shall be finalised as above at the earliest at any rate within 'two weeks' .

¶56

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶57

sv.

¶58

W.P.(C)No.24775/2013 5

A.Vijayakumari v. Thge District Collector, Kannur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Vijayakumari v. Thge District Collector, Kannur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vineesh Vs M.K.Kaladharan

All Kerala Chemist and Drugist Association Vs State of Kerala

Cheelangatt Pushparaj Vs Southern Railway

Kamallouis Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

K.K. Ashokan Vs the Additional District Magistrate

Kanhangadan Puthanpurayil Janaki Vs the District Collector