Dismissed

Abdul Khader, v. Union of India

Kerala HC10 Jun 2022WP(C)/11587/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the allotment of a petroleum retail outlet to the fifth respondent on the ground of incorrect plot location and violation of an interim order. The court held the petition's premise faulty as the allotment was based on a different notification (2019) regarding Serial No. 21, and the petitioner had not responded to that notification. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed on the ground that the factual premise regarding the sale notification was incorrect and the petitioner did not apply for the specific plot.

Abdul Khader, Vs Union of India — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 20TH JYAISHTA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 11587 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

ABDUL KHADER,
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O. MOIDEEN.P., PAZHERI HOUSE, KARUVANKALLU,
PERUVALLUR P.O., MALAPPURAM , KERALA 673 638.
BY ADVS.
ADARSH KUMAR
K.M.ANEESH
K.SANTHOSH KUMAR (KALIYANAM)
DILEEP CHANDRAN
SHASHANK DEVAN

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, SHASTRI BHAWAN,
NEW DELHI 1001.

¶10

2 MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER (MANGALORE REGION), KUTHETHOOR P.O., VIA KATIPALLA, MANGALURU, KARNATAKA 575 030.

¶11

3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM, COLLECTORATE, COLLECTORATE RD, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM , KERALA 676 505.

¶12

4 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MALAPPURAM, COLLECTORATE, COLLCTORATE RD, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM , KERALA 676 505.

¶13

5MUHAMMED BASID P.K.,
S/O. ABDURAHMAN, POOLAKKAL KARAT, CHALI HOUSE,
KUZHIMANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM , KERALA 673 641.
BY ADVS.
P.A.AUGUSTINE(AREEKATTEL)
ALIAS M.CHERIAN
RONY AUGUSTINE
K.M.RAPHY
BRISTO S PARIYARAM
NEENU ANNA BABU
AJAI ALIAS CHALAPPURAM

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 11587 OF 2022

¶16

¶17

ASGI S. MANU; GP RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 10.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C) NO. 11587 OF 2022

¶20

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Dated this the 10^th day of June, 2022

¶23

The writ petition is filed aggrieve by the allotment of petroleum retail outlet to the 5th respondent. The second respondent had issued Ext.P1 notification inviting applications from interested persons for conduct of regular and rural retail outlet dealerships in Kerala. The allegation is that the 5th respondent’s plot, for which allotment is granted, is outside the area shown in Serial No.80. According to the petitioner, the 5th respondent had not even responded to Ext.P1 notification.

¶24

2.Learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that, this Court had passed an interim order on 31.03.2022, directing the 2nd respondent to maintain status quo as regards the issuance of NOC under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules. Violating the interim order, the Additional District Magistrate/4th respondent issued Ext.R2(c) NOC on the same day (31.03.2022).

¶25

3.Learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent

¶26

WP(C) NO. 11587 OF 2022

¶27

submitted that the writ petition is filed on the mistaken impression that 5th respondent was allotted petroleum retail dealership based on Ext.P1 notification. In fact, the allotment is based on Ext.R2(a) notification of the year 2019.In response to Ext.R2(a), the 5th respondent had applied for dealership in the site shown at Serial No.21 therein. Accordingly, the 5th respondent was included in Ext.R2(b) list of persons selected for allotment of dealership. Ext.R2(c) NOC, which the petitioner alleges to have been issued in violation of the interim order, pertains to the allotment based on Ext.R2(a) notification.

¶28

4.It is also submitted that the 2nd respondent had canceled the proceedings for allotment of retail outlet at Serial No.80 in Ext.P1, since none of the applicants was able to make available the land required for conducting the dealership.

¶29

In view of the above indisputable factual position, the very premise on which the writ petition is filed has turned out to be faulty. Even if the petitioner has got property in the

¶30

WP(C) NO. 11587 OF 2022

¶31

¶32

location shown as Serial No.21 in Ext.R2(a), he is not entitled for allotment as he had not responded to the notification.

¶33

For the aforementioned reasons, this writ petition is

¶34

dismissed.

¶35

Sd/V.G ARUN JUDGE

¶36

¶37

WP(C) NO. 11587 OF 2022

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11587/2022

¶40

`PETITIO` `Exhibit`	`NER EXHIB` `P1`	`ITS` `A TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED ADVERTISEMENT` `FOR RETAIL OUTLET DEALERSHIP ISSUED BY` `THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit`	`P2`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF APPLICANTS` `WITH RESPECT TO EXHIBIT P1 ADVERTISEMENT.`
`Exhibit`	`P3`	`A TRUE COPY OF PICTORIAL REPRESENTATION` `PREPARED BY THE PETITIONER WITH RESPECT` `TO THE SL.NO. 80 NOTIFIED AREA UNDER` `EXHIBIT P1 AND THE SURROUNDING AREAS.`
`Exhibit`	`P4`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED` `06.01.2022 PREFERRED BY THE 2ND` `RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit`	`P5`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED` `22.02.2022 ISSUED BY THE TEHSILDAR,` `TIRURANGADI TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.`
`RESPOND`	`ENT EXHIB`	`ITS`
`Exhibit`	`R2(a)`	`TRUE COPY OF ADVERTISEMENT ISSUED BY THE` `2ND RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit`	`R2(a)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF APPLICANTS` `APPLIED IN RESPONSE TO EXHIBIT 2-(A)` `ADVERTISEMENT.`
`Exhibit`	`R2(c)`	`TRUE COPY OF NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE` `(NOC) DATED 31-03-2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH` `RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THIS RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit`	`R2(d)`	`TRUE COPY OF CONSENT TO ESTABLISH DATED` `19-03-2022 ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE` `POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD IN FAVOUR OF THE` `5TH RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit`	`R5(A)`	`TRUE COPY OF PRIOR APPROVAL NO.` `A/P/SC/KL/14/4569(P528892) DATED` `02/02/2022 IS ALOS ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY` `CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, CHENNAI.`
`Exhibit`	`R5(B)`	`TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. E-630/2022 DATED` `27/01/2022 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT FIRE` `OFFICER, FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES,` `MALAPPURAM.`

Abdul Khader, v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Khader, v. Union of India

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

Jabir T.K Vs Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.

C Anil Kumar, Vs the Superintending Engineer

Secretary, Evangelical Social Action Forum (Esaf) Vs the District Registrar (General)

Molly Thomas Vs the District Collector

Vivek.S., Vs Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement

Salini Devi, Vs State of Kerala