Dismissed

Peter P.George v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Nov 2021WP(C)/10595/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, on an application limited to the consideration of specific complaints filed by the petitioner, directed the Additional District Magistrate and Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives to dispose of the representations within three months without deciding on the merit or maintainability of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondents 2 and 4 to consider the complaints and pass orders within three months without hearing the Court on merit.

Peter P.George Vs the State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA,

¶4

¶5

WP(C) NO. 10595 OF 2020

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

PETER P.GEORGE
POONTHOTTATHIL HOUSE, ELANJI P.O.
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.
ARUN CHANDRAN
SRI.J.VISHNU

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1ST FLOOR, SOUTH BLOCK, SECRETARIAT, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶11

2 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM 682 030.

¶12

3 JOINT CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVE, A AND D WING, BLOCK 1-8, IIND FLOOR, SHASTRI BHAVAN, 26 HADDOUS ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI (TAMIL NADU), 600006.

¶13

4 DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES C-2 IIRD FLOOR, CGO COMPLEX, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM 682 020.

¶14

5 THE PIRAVOM MUNICIPALITY, PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 686 664, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

6 THE TERRITORY MANAGER, (RETAIL), BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, ERNAKULAM TERRITORY (RETAIL), OFFICE, IRIMPANAM, INSTALLATION, COCHIN 682 309.

¶16

-2-

¶17

W.P.(C). No. 10595 of 2020

¶18

7 SUNEESH.O.N. S/O. NARAYAN P.A., PAYYAPPILLIL HOUSE, SOUTH MARADY P.O. NORTH MARADY, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 686 673.

¶19

8ADDL.R8.BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY THE TERRITORY
MANAGER(RETAIL),BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION
LIMITED,ERNAKULAM TERRITORY(RETAIL)
OFFICE,IRIMPANAM INSTALLATION,ERNAKULAM-682309
(IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 30.6.2020 IN
IA 1/2020 IN WPC)

¶20

BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA
SHRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN, SC, PIRAVOM MUNICIPALITY
SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN
M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM

¶21

OTHER PRESENT:

¶22

SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR.GP, SRI.S.MANU, ASGI

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 24.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

-3-

¶25

W.P.(C). No. 10595 of 2020

¶26

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶27

W.P.(C) No.10595 of 2020

¶28

Dated this the 24^th day of November, 2021

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers”

¶31

“i. Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Exhibit-P3 and to quash the same.

¶32

ii. Issue a writ declaring that the petrol fuel outlet proposed to be set up by the 6th and 7th respondents is in violation of the IRC and PWD guidelines and cannot be allowed to operate.

¶33

iii.Issue a writ directing the 3rd respondent not to grant license to the petrol bunk proposed to be set up by the 6th and 7th respondents.

¶34

iv. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the 2nd and 4th respondents to dispose of the Exhibit-P10 and Exhibit-P11 complaints before them in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and within a maximum period of 2 weeks.

¶35

-4-

¶36

W.P.(C). No. 10595 of 2020

¶37

v. Issue an appropriate writ directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to ensure that no construction activity pertaining to the proposed petrol pump is allowed to be carried out in the plots covered by the Exhibit-P9 lease deed.

¶38

vi.Grant such other reliefs as this Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶39

When this writ petition came up for consideration,

¶40

the learned counsel for the petitioner confined his prayer for a consideration of Exts.P10 and P11 by respondents 2 and 4. The above prayer is strongly opposed by the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 6 and

¶41

The Government Pleader and the Standing Counsel submitted that respondents 2 and 4 have no authority to consider these representations and there is no statutory backing for the same. The Government Pleader and the Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner is not an aggrieved party. The Standing Counsel for respondents 6 and 8 takes me through

¶42

-5-

¶43

W.P.(C). No. 10595 of 2020

¶44

the first sentence in the writ petition, in which it is stated that the petitioner is managing a petrol pump in Elanji, Kottayam. According to the Standing Counsel, he is a rival claimant and he wants to stall the construction of this retail outlet.

¶45

I don’t want to make any observation about the merit of the case. The limited prayer of the petitioner is to consider Exts.P10 and P11 by respondents 2 and 4. I make it clear that, respondents 2 and 4 can pass appropriate orders in accordance to law. I also make it clear that, I have not considered the maintainability of said representations before the 2^nd and 4^th respondents and that also can be considered by respondents 2 and 4. This Court intended to dispose of this writ petition only to pass orders in Exts.P10 and P11 within a time limit. Therefore, all the contentions of the petitioner and the respondents are left open. I also make it clear that I have not passed any interim order staying the construction of the outlet.

¶46

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following

¶47

-6-

¶48

W.P.(C). No. 10595 of 2020

¶49

manner:

¶50

Respondents 2 and 4 are directed to consider Exts.P10 and P11 representations, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶51

Before passing orders in these representations, respondents 2 and 4 will hear the petitioner and the other respondents, if necessary.

¶52

I make it clear that I have not considered the matter on merit and respondents 2 and 4 are free to pass appropriate orders, in accordance to law. Respondents 2 and 4 are also free to decide the maintainability of said representations before that authority.

¶53

sd/-

¶54

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶55

das

¶56

-7-

¶57

W.P.(C). No. 10595 of 2020

¶58

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10595/2020

¶59

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶60

`EXHIBIT P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE BPCL’S REPLY TO THE` `RTI APPLICATION PREFERRED BY THE` `PETITIONER, DATED 09.11.2016.`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF INTENT` `DATED 30.11.2016 FOR RETAIL OUTLET` `DEALERSHIP ISSUED TO THE 7TH` `RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE NOC ISSUED BY THE` `ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,` `ERNAKULAM, FOR THE PETROL BUNK, DATED` `28.12.2018.`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT` `ISSUED BY THE PIRAVOM MUNICIPALITY,` `DATED 09.12.2019.`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. (MS) NO.` `16/2020/PWD DATED 10.02.2020., ISSUED` `BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,` `GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT AND AFFIDAVIT` `IN O.S.NO. 96/2020 FILED BEFORE THE` `MUSIFF COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA.`
`EXHIBIT P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSION` `REPORT IN O.S. NO. 96/2020 DATED` `21.03.2020.`
`EXHIBIT P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF` `THE IRC 12-2016 UNIFIED GUIDELINES FOR` `ACCESS PERMISSION FOR FUEL STATION.`
`EXHIBIT P9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED ENTERED` `INTO BY THE BPCL DATED 18.03.2020.`
`EXHIBIT P10`	`TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT, SUBMITTED` `BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ADM,` `ERNAKULAM, DATED 21.05.2020.`

¶61

-8-

¶62

W.P.(C). No. 10595 of 2020

¶63

EXHIBIT P11TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DEPUTY
CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, DATED
21.05.2020.

¶64

RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS

¶65

`EXHIBIT`	`R6(a)` `TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED` `03.06.2020 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE` `OFFICER, PIRAVOM, ALONG WITH AN` `ENGLISH TRANSLATION`
`EXHIBIT`	`R6(b)` `TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO ESTABLISH` `ISSUED BY THE KSPCB DATED 19.10.2019`
`EXHIBIT`	`R6(c)` `TRUE COPY OF THE TOKEN OF APPROVAL` `ISSUED BY THE PESO DATED 03.10.2017`
`EXHIBIT`	`R6(d)` `TRUE COPY OF THE SITE PLAN DATED` `25.08.2017`
`EXHIBIT`	`R6(e)` `TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED` `04.05.2020 SUBMITTED BY BPCL TO PESO` `FOR CORRECTION OF SY.NO.`
`EXHIBIT`	`R7(a)` `TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF` `ADVERTISEMENT OF NOTICE FOR RETAIL` `OUTLET DEALERSHIP PUBLISHED IN THE THE` `HINDU AND MALAYALA MANORAMA DATED` `18.10.2014`
`EXHIBIT`	`R7(b)` `TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED WILL AS` `WILL NO.III 79/2000 DATED 31.05.2000` `OF SUB REGISTRAR’S OFFICE, PIRAVOM`
`EXHIBIT`	`R7(c)` `TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE GIVEN BY` `VILLAGE OFFICER, PIRAVOM TO BE` `PRODUCED BEFORE THE BHARAT PETROLEUM` `CORPORATION LTD. DATED 03.06.2020`
`EXHIBIT`	`R7(d)` `TRUE COPY OF THE NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT` `GIVEN BY CYRIAC MATHEW PRODUCED ALONG` `WITH THE RETAIL OUTLET DEALERSHIP` `APPLICATION OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT` `BEFORE BPCL.`

¶66

-9-

¶67

W.P.(C). No. 10595 of 2020

¶68

EXHIBIT R7(e)TRUE COPY OF THE NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT
GIVEN BY JOSEPH MATHEW PRODUCED ALONG
WITH THE RETAIL OUTLET DEALERSHIP
APPLICATION OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT
BEFORE BPCL.

¶69

-10-

¶70

W.P.(C). No. 10595 of 2020

Peter P.George v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Peter P.George v. the State of Kerala

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

Suresh P.R Vs Erattupetta Municipality

Anirudhan Vs State of Kerala

Lilly Vs the State of Kerala

Keraleeya Ayurveda Samajam Vs the District Registrar (General)

Thankakuttan J.A. Vs Branch Manager

Matha Engineering Works Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.