Quashed

Madhu.v.G v. Ancy Varghese

Kerala HC16 Nov 2015WP(C)/16535/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed orders cancelling a building permit for an LPG godown, holding that the cancellation was passed in violation of natural justice principles because the petitioner was not informed or heard before an inspection report was relied upon.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders cancelling the building permit were quashed. A direction was issued to the respondent to pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner within three months.

Madhu.v.G Vs Ancy Varghese — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶4

MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/25TH KARTHIKA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 16535 of 2012 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

MADHU.V.G M/S.SABARI GAS SERVICE (LPG) VADASSERIKARA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SRI.S.SUJIN

¶8

RESPONDENT(S):

¶9

1. ANCY VARGHESE, KODINJIYIL HOUSE, VADASSERIKARA RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 689672

¶10

2. SECRETARY, VADASSERIKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT VADASSERIKARA, PATHANAMTHITTA.689662

¶11

3. DEPUTY DIDRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, PATHANAMTHITTA-689001

¶12

4. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT LOCAL SELF DEPARTMENT (RA), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001

¶13

5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001

¶14

R2 BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW R2 BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU R4-R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.J.MICHAEL R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.A.MAJEED R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.H.ASIF R1 BY ADV. THOMAS T.MATHEW

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 16535 of 2012 (N)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶19

EXHIBIT-P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 14.9.2010 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, VADASSERIKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT.

¶20

EXHIBIT-P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE DATED 19.4.2011 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, VADASSERIKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT.

¶21

EXHIBIT-P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE DATED 2.5.2011 ISSUED BY DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, ERNAKULAM, SUB CIRCLE OFFICE, KOCHI.

¶22

EXHIBIT-P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) NO.33984/2010 DATED 11.11.2010 BEFORE THE HON'BLE COURT.

¶23

EXHIBIT-P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 4.6.2012 ISSUED BY THE GOVT. SECRETARY TO THE SECRETARY, VADASSERIKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT.

¶24

EXHIBIT-P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE SECRETARY, VADASSERIKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 26.6.2012.

¶25

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶26

EXT.R2(A)- TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.C3/6567/10/D.DIS DTD.13.7.2010 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

¶27

EXT.R3(A)- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C3/6567/10/D.DIS DTD.13.7.2010 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

OKB

True copy

P.A. to Judge

K.HARILAL, J.

W.P.(C) No.16535 of 2012

¶33

Dated this the 16^th day of November, 2015.

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

The petitioner is a dealer of Liquid

¶36

Petroleum Gas of Bharat Petroleum Corporation. He had obtained dealership and had opened dealership in Plot Nos.196/10/1 and 196/10/2 in Pathanamthitta, after obtaining permission and licences from all the statutory authorities. The 1^st respondent and two others objected to the building permit and also the permission granted to the petitioner to open the LPG godown in the present site, by making various complaints and representations before all the authorities and ultimately, they approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.33984/2010 complaining that the authorities have failed to consider their complaints. Thereafter, this Court considered the grievance of the 1^st respondent and dismissed the writ

¶37

WP(C).16535/12 :2:

¶38

petition by Ext.P4 judgment on a finding that there is no statutory provision specifying any distance for LPG godown from a residence and there is no necessity to obtain No Objection Certificate from the residents to locate the godown in any residential premises. While so, to the surprise of the petitioner, the petitioner got Ext.P6 communication from the 2^nd respondent informing that the building permit issued to him is cancelled.

¶39

It is learnt that Ext.P6 has been issued in compliance with Ext.P5 order passed by the 5^th respondent informing the 3^rd respondent that the 5^th respondent decided to cancel the building permit issued to the petitioner. So also, the 3^rd respondent was directed to inform the name of the Secretary of the Panchayat who has issued the building permit. According to the petitioner, Ext.P5 order cancelling the building permit is arbitrary, illegal and issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. Thus, the legality and propriety of Exts.P5 & P6 orders are

¶40

WP(C).16535/12 :3:

¶41

subjected to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before this Court, in this writ petition.

¶42

The 3^rd respondent filed a counter affidavit contending that the 1^st respondent filed a petition before the Kerala Legislative Council for Welfare of Women and Children, praying for cancellation of building permit issued by the 2^nd respondent for construction of the gas godown and the said petition was handed over to the 3^rd respondent for enquiry by the Local Self Government Department through letter No.74749/RA1/2010/LSGD dated 21.12.2010. The 3^rd respondent entrusted the Junior Superintendent to inspect the site and he measured the distance between the godown and the houses, bearing Nos.VPII/61A belonged to the 1^st respondent and one Mr.Varughese, with the help of the Panchayat Overseer. The distances were 47.4m and 43.25m respectively and reported this matter to the Government through letter No.G4.162/11 dated 26.9.2011. After considering the report filed by

¶43

WP(C).16535/12 :4:

¶44

the 3^rd respondent, the Local Self Government Department through the letter dated 4.6.2012 has informed the 2^nd and the 3^rd respondents that the building did not maintain sufficient distance. Consequently, the 2^nd respondent cancelled the door number and issued Ext.P6 to the petitioner.

¶45

The 2^nd respondent Panchayat also filed a counter statement stating that the Panchayat was constrained to cancel the building permit, which was issued earlier, in compliance with the direction in Ext.P5 order passed by the Government.

¶46

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶47

Going by the proceedings, it is seen that the

¶48

building permit has been cancelled on the basis of an inspection said to have been done by the Office Superintendent of the office of the 3^rd respondent. Either the 3^rd respondent or the 4^th respondent has no case that such an inspection was conducted after informing the petitioner, who is the aggrieved party

¶49

WP(C).16535/12 :5:

¶50

before this Court in this respect. When the statutory licence under the Panchayat Raj Act has been issued in favour of a person, a vested right is conferred to him to do an act, whatever it may be. If any superior authority or the Government feels that the granting of building permit is irregular and illegal, the aggrieved person should have been given an opportunity of being heard, before cancelling the permit, in exercise of supervisory or superior jurisdiction. So also, no inspection could have been done in the premises of the petitioner, without informing him. Therefore, such an inspection report prepared in his absence is not binding on him. Consequently, the decision taken on the basis of such a report, which was prepared on the basis of a secret inspection is not binding on him also. It follows that Exts.P5 & P6 orders are passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶51

In the above view of the matter, Exts.P5 & P6 orders passed by the 4^th and 5^th respondents will stand quashed. The 4^th respondent is further directed to pass

¶52

WP(C).16535/12 :6:

¶53

order afresh, after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶54

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

K. HARILAL, JUDGE

¶57

okb.

Madhu.v.G v. Ancy Varghese

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhu.v.G v. Ancy Varghese

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Parameswaran Vs State of Kerala

N.M.Sidhic Vs the Deputy General Manager

Ar. Bhaskaran Vs the Geologist

Kathayee Cotton Mills Limited Vs the Special Tahsildar (La General)

Thrideep Vs the Secretary to Government

Bincy Manoj Vs State of Kerala