Allowed

Ragitha v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Oct 2020WA/1165/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment dismissing the writ petition, relying on a subsequent judgment of the same court (W.A. No. 27 of 2020). The court held that appellants who obtained No Objection Certificates under interim directions must continue to enjoy their benefits despite the final judgment merging with the interim order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment dated 19.12.2019 set aside; writ appeal allowed; benefits of interim No Objection Certificates continued for appellants.

Ragitha Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERLA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶3

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 17TH ASWINA, 1942

¶6

WA.No.1165 OF 2020

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 25367/2019(U) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 19.12.2019

¶8

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶9

RAGITHA, AGED 36 YEARS VALLILLATH HOUSE,PANNIYAMKURSI, CHERPULASSERY,PALAKKAD-679503.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶13

REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,

¶14

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,

¶15

SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶16

2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER(PWD ROADS), PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶17

3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROADS DIVISION,PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION,

¶18

SULTHANPETTA,PALAKKAD-678 001.

¶19

4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD, COLLECTORATE,KENATHUPARAMBU,KUNNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD-678013.

¶20

5 INDIAN OILC CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER(RS), INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, COCHIN DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PANAMPILLY AVENUE,PANAMPILLY NAGAR.P.O,KOCHI-682 036.

¶21

SRI.MANOJ KUMAR N, SPL. GP FOR R1 TO R4,

¶22

SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR FOR R5

¶23

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WA.No.1165 OF 2020

:: 2 ::

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 9^th day of October 2020

¶28

S.MANIKUMAR, C.J.

¶29

Instant writ appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 19.12.2019 in W.P.(C)No.25367 of 2019, by which the writ court dismissed the writ petition holding that if at all the petitioners have any grievance against the application of IRC Guidelines and MORTH Norms in the matter of considering their requests for No Objection Certificates under Rules 144 of the Rules, they cannot approach this Court before a decision is taken on the application.

¶30

The very same issue has been considered by this Court in W.A. No. 27 of 2020 and connected cases, and this Court as per judgment dated 05.03.2020 allowed the writ appeals. The operative portion of the said judgment reads thus:

¶31

“7. Mr. M. GopiKrishnan Nambiar, learned standing counsel for Bharat Petroleum Corporation and Mr. N. Manoj Kumamr, learned Special Government Pleader for the State submitted that Government have incorporated IRC norms in the PWD Manual. G.O.(M.S) No.16/2020/PWD dated 10.2.2020 has been issued subsequent to the disposal of writ petitions. IRC guidelines for road safety has been withdrawn on 1.12.2019. Had the of withdrawal of IRC guidelines been brought to the notice of the writ court, this common judgment dismissing the writ petitions for not satisfying IRC guidelines would not have been passed 8. Pursuant to the interim directions granted in the writ petitions, some of the appellants have been issued with No Objection Certificates.

¶32

WA.No.1165 OF 2020

¶33

:: 3 ::

¶34

Subsequently, writ petitions have been dismissed. Though interim order merges with the final judgment, correctness of the said judgment is carried on in the instant appeals and judgment is reversed, the litigant is entitled to be protected and entitled to the benefits arising out of the interim order. Thus, we are of the view that the writ petitioners/appellants, who have obtained No Objection Certificate from competent authority shall continue with the the benefits of the interim order. We are not expressing anything on those applications which are rejected or still pending with the competent authority. Common judgment in W.P(C). No.29005 of 2019 and connected cases dated 19.12.2019 is set aside. All the writ appeals are allowed, as indicated above.”

¶35

Since the issue is already covered in favour of the appellant, Sri. Manoj Kumar.N, Special Government Pleader, is put on notice for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri. M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar, learned Standing Counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation is also put on notice for the 5th respondent.

¶36

Following the judgment dated 05.03.2020 passed by this Court in W.A.No.27 of 2020 and batch, we allow this writ appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment.

¶37

SD/- S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE

¶38

SD/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

jes

WA.No.1165 OF 2020

:: 4 ::

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶44

ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED 17.10.2019 ISSUED UNDER RULE 144 OF THE PETROLEUM RULES 2002, FOR STORAGE OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS IN RE.SY.NO.65/25 OF ANANGANADI VILLAGE.

¶45

// True Copy //

¶46

P.S. to Judge

Ragitha v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ragitha v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prasobh B. Vs New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Chandar Raju Vs State of Kerala

Central Board of Secondary Education, Vs Shanu

Siddique Babu I. Vs State of Kerala

The Commissioner for Entrance Examinations Vs Ananthapadmanabhan C. S.

Mohammed Faizal P.M. Vs the Registrar