Disposed

Auto Gas Energy (India) Limited v. Cochin Corporation

Kerala HC16 Jul 2019WP(C)/265/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged show-cause notices alleging business without license. Court held interference unwarranted for show-cause notices alone and directed petitioner to explain within one week. Permission granted for car wash activity during proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Show-cause notices cannot be interfered with; petitioner directed to submit explanation within one week. Petitioner permitted to continue car wash activity pending decision.

Auto Gas Energy (India) Limited Vs Cochin… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 25TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.265 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

AUTO GAS ENERGY (INDIA) LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR BIJU VARGHESE, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE, MADATHIL HOUSE, ELAMAKKARA P.O.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR SMT.V.SHYLAJA

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 COCHIN CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PARK AVENUE ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 018.

¶11

2 THE SECRETARY, COCHIN CORPORATION, PARK AVENUE ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 018.

¶12

3 HEALTH INSPECTOR GRADE-2, CIRCLE-14,K COCHIN CORPORATION, OFFICE AT EDAPPALLY-682 024.

¶13

4 SHAJU VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE, AGED 47 YEARS, KALLACHAMURI HOUSE, EDAPPALLY P.O., MARKET ROAD, EDAPPALLY VILLAGE, EDAPPALLY DESOM, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 024.

¶14

WP(C).No.265 of 2019

¶15

-2-

¶16

*** ADDL.R5 BABU IQBAL, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O K.V BEERAMKUTTY, VALLAPEEDIAKKAL, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM.**

¶17

*** (IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 25/01/2019 IN IA.NO.1/2019)**

¶18

*** ADDL.R6 THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, DISTRICT OFFICE I, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM-20.**

¶19

*** (IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 25/03/2019 IN IA NO.2/2019)**

¶20

BY ADVS. SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH SRI.AJITH VISWANATHAN

¶21

SRI.JOSEPH K.L.,STANDING COUNSEL, KOCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

¶22

SMT.SAREENA GEORGE,STANDING COUNSEL, KOCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

¶23

SRI.T.NAVEEN,STANDING COUNSEL, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

WP(C).No.265 of 2019

¶26

-3-

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

The petitioner, a company represented by its Managing

¶29

Director, which is stated to have taken on rent about 24.27 Ares of property in Survey Nos.3/17, 3/18 and 3/23-3 of Edappally North Village with a building bearing No.38/321-A of Corporation of Cochin, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exts.P9 to P12 show-cause notices dated 03.03.2018 of the 3^rd respondent Health Inspector of the 1^st respondent Corporation; and a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 4 not to make any sort of obstruction to the business being conducted by the petitioner in pursuance of Ext.P1 licence, which is one issued to the petitioner for conducting business in tyre, battery, lube, coffee shop, car wash, pollution testing, etc.

¶30

On 09.01.2019, when this writ petition came up

¶31

for admission, the learned Standing Counsel sought time to get instructions. While listing the matter to 11.01.2019, this Court ordered that, if any coercive action is contemplated on

¶32

WP(C).No.265 of 2019

¶33

-4-

¶34

the basis of the notices under challenge, the same shall be kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks. The said interim order, which was extended from time to time, is still in force.

¶35

On 08.03.2019, when this writ petition came up

¶36

for consideration, this Court passed the following order;

¶37

“The learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent Corporation, representing respondents 1 to 3 seeks time to file counter affidavit.

¶38

The 2^nd respondent Secretary of the 1^st respondent Corporation shall file a counter affidavit within one week, explaining the steps taken on Ext.P6 application for licence made by the petitioner. He shall also explain the reasons, if any, for not taking any decision on Ext.P6 application within the statutory time limit of thirty days and also whether any defects or deficiencies in Ext.P6 application has been intimated to the petitioner, within thirty days.

¶39

Post on 20.03.2019.

¶40

Interim order will stand extended till then, subject to the condition that the petitioner is having consent from the Pollution Control Board.

¶41

The petitioner to file an application to implead the concerned Environmental Engineer of the Pollution Control Board, as additional respondent, after serving a copy of that interlocutory application to the learned Standing Counsel.”

¶42

WP(C).No.265 of 2019

¶43

-5-

¶44

Thereafter, on 02.04.2019, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation that the validity of the deemed licence has already expired on 31.03.2019 was recorded.

¶45

Counter affidavits have been filed by respondents 1 to 3 and also by the 5^th respondent, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition.

¶46

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

¶47

learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3, the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent, the learned counsel for the additional 5^th respondent and also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the additional 6^th respondent Pollution Control Board.

¶48

As already noticed, the challenge made in this writ petition is against Exts.P9 to P12 notices issued by the 2^nd respondent, which are show-cause notices issued on the ground that the petitioner is conducting business without obtaining necessary licence from the 2^nd respondent.

¶49

WP(C).No.265 of 2019

¶50

-6-

¶51

During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has already been granted licence for the year 2019-20, for conducting car wash. The learned Standing Counsel for Corporation would submit that he is yet to get instructions in this regard.

¶52

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this Court finds that, since Exts.P9 to P12 notices are only show-cause notices, no interference on those notices are warranted, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is for the petitioner to submit proper explanation to those notices, within one week, which shall be considered by the Secretary or an authorised officer of the 1^st respondent Corporation, with notice to the petitioner and also to additional respondents 4 and 5, who shall take an appropriate decision, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a further period of three weeks.

¶53

If the petitioner is having a valid licence to conduct car

¶54

WP(C).No.265 of 2019

¶55

-7-

¶56

wash, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he shall be permitted to carry out that activity pending consideration of the explanation to Exts.P9 to P12 show-cause notices.

¶57

Sd/- ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶58

bpr

¶59

WP(C).No.265 of 2019

¶60

-8-

¶61

APPENDIX

¶62

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶63

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED FOR RENEWAL OF EXHIBIT P1 LICENSE.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P3 APPLICATION.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF RS.20,760/- FOR RENEWAL OF EXHIBIT P1 LICENSE.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF EXHIBIT P1 LICENSE FOR THE YEAR 2018- 19.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT SHOWING THE RECEIPT OF EXHIBIT P6 APPLICATION.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN REQUEST ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P6.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. H1/C14/110/18-19.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. H1/C14/111/18-19.
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. H1/C14/112/18-19.
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. H1/C14/113/18-19.
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE COPY OF PERMISSION ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.

¶64

WP(C).No.265 of 2019

¶65

-9-

¶66

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶67

EXHIBIT R5(A)	TRUE EXTRACT OF T 14/02/2016 PUBLIS DAILY.	HE ADVERTISEMENT DATED HED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA
EXHIBIT R5(B)	TRUE COPY OF THE 22/02/2016 OF M/S ASSOCIATION.	COMPLAINT DATED .KERALA AUTO GAS DEALERS
EXHIBIT R5(C)	TRUE COPY OF THE OF CHIEF CONTROLL M/S.KERALA AUTO G	LETTER DATED 28/03/2016 ER OF EXPLOSIVES TO AS DEALERS ASSOCIATION.
EXHIBIT R5(D)	TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT DATED EXECUTIVE ENGINEE	COMPLAINT OF THE 5TH 01/03/2017 TO THE R OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R5(E)	TRUE COPY OF THE OF THE ENVIRONMEN POLLUTION CONTROL PETITIONER.	LETTER DATED 22/11/2016 T ENGINEER, KERALA STATE BOARD TO THE
EXHIBIT R5(F)	TRUE COPY OF THE OF THE 1ST RESPON RESPONDENT.	LETTER DATED 26/11/2016 DENT TO THE 5TH
EXHIBIT R5(G)	TRUE COPY OF THE BY THE 2ND RESPON	ORDER DATED 15/01/2018 DENT.
EXHIBIT R5(H)	TRUE COPY OF THE OF THE 2ND RESPON	ORDER DATED 11/01/2019 DENT.
EXHIBIT R5(I)	TRUE COPY OF THE BY THE DISTRICT C	NOTICE DATED 18/08/2014 OLLECTOR.
EXHIBIT R5(J)	TRUE COPY OF THE OF THE ASSISTANT THE 1ST RESPONDEN	NOTICE DATED 17/10/2017 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OF T TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R6(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE ISSUED BY THE PCB	NOTICE DATED 14/01/2018 .
EXHIBIT R6(B)	TRUE COPY OF THE 22/02/2019 SUBMIT SRI.SHAJU VARGHES	REPRESENTATION DATED TED BY THE LAND OWNER, E.

Auto Gas Energy (India) Limited v. Cochin Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Auto Gas Energy (India) Limited v. Cochin Corporation

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

D.Parameswaran Nair, Vs Thripunithura Municipality

Shaji S. Vs the District Collector

Shalif Mohammed Nahas Vs the Kochi Muncipal Corporation

M.D.Francis Vs K.M.Ummer

Shamla Krishnan @ Shamla. Vs District Collector

Muhammad Rafeeque Vs Irinjalakuda Municipality