Allowed

Aruna P., v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Feb 2022WP(C)/2355/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ court set aside Impugned Order (Ext.P16) directing petitioner to seek SEIAA clearance for a Petroleum Retail Outlet. Held that existing Development Permit and Pollution Control Board Consent precludes requirement for fresh EIA. Directed 2nd Respondent to reconsider HPCL’s NOC application within one month.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Ext.P16 order set aside; 2nd Respondent directed to reconsider NOC application for 4th Respondent and pass orders within one month.

Aruna P., Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022/2ND PHALGUNA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 2355 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

ARUNA P., AGED 35 YEARS, W/O. RATHEESH A., ARUNAVILASAM, KALAYAPURAM, KOLLAYIL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶7

BY ADVS. MANOJ RAMASWAMY JOLIMA GEORGE JISHA SASI C.B.SABEELA APARNA G. CHINNU ROSE MARY THOMAS

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶10

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 013.

¶11

3 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, O/O COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶12

4 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER, COCHIN RETAIL REGIONAL OFFICE, PB NO.1601, ERNAKULAM NORTH P.O., ERNAKULAM-682 018.

¶13

WP(C)No.2355/2022

¶14

¶15

5 THE GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF MINING & GEOLOGY, KOLLAM DISTRICT – 691 008.

¶16

6 THE MEMBER SECRETARY, STATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY, 4TH FLOOR, KSRTC BUS TERMINAL, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶17

BY ADVS. R1-R3 & R5 SRI.APPU P.S., G.P. R4 – SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR R4 - SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI R4 - SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN R4 - SRI.KURYAN THOMAS R4 - SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM R4 - SRI.RAJA KANNAN R6 – SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN, SC

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C)No.2355/2022

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 21^st day of February, 2022

¶23

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to direct the 2^nd respondent to issue necessary NOC to establish a Petroleum Retail Outlet pursuant to Ext.P2 application of the 4^th respondent – HPCL within a time frame and to set aside Ext.P16.

¶24

The application for NOC submitted by the HPCL was considered and the Additional District Magistrate passed Ext.P11 order rejecting the application for NOC submitted by the HPCL. Aggrieved by the said Ext.P11 order, Ext.P12 appeal was preferred before the Land Revenue Commissioner. This Court in WP(C) No.25346 of 2021 directed the Land Revenue Commissioner to consider the appeal and pass appropriate orders. Subsequently, the Land Revenue Commissioner issued Ext.P15 order setting

¶25

WP(C)No.2355/2022

¶26

¶27

aside Ext.P11 order and directing the District Authority to consider the application afresh.

¶28

The petitioner states that even after Ext.P15, the District Collector as per Ext.P16 sought for a report from the 6^th respondent – Member Secretary, SEIAA. In Ext.P16, it has been stated that since there is no Building Permit or Development Permit, the case should go to SEIAA for Environmental Clearance. It is aggrieved by the direction of the District Authority contained in Ext.P16 that the petitioner is before this Court.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Additional District Magistrate has issued Ext.P16 only to cause further delay in issuing NOC. In Ext.P16, it is stated that if there is no Building Permit and Development Permit, NOC can only be granted as and when application is submitted along with Environmental Clearance given by the 6^th respondent.

¶30

¶31

WP(C)No.2355/2022

¶32

The petitioner has obtained Consent to Establish

¶33

from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board and Ext.P6 Development Permit from the Panchayat. Since the petitioner is holding a Development Permit, the reasons stated in Ext.P16 cannot stand the scrutiny of law.

¶34

The learned Government Pleader entered appearance and contested the writ petition. The learned Government Pleader controverted all the material allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition. The Government Pleader submitted that as the petitioner is holding Ext.P6 Development Permit, the petitioner can approach the Geologist and obtain transit passes for removing the earth for the purpose of establishment of fuel station.

¶35

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 and 5. I have also heard the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 4 and 6.

¶36

WP(C)No.2355/2022

¶37

¶38

8. This Court considered a similar issue in WP(C)

¶39

No.23431/2021 in similar circumstances and this Court held

¶40

as follows:

¶41

“The allegation that the petroleum outlet is likely to cause environmental issues is not supported by any data. The competent authority to decide whether any environmental pollution will result in from the establishment of Retail Petroleum Outlet is the Pollution Control Board. The petitioner has already obtained Ext.P5 Consent to Establish from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. When the competent authority has found and considered the matter and granted approval for site, the 3^rd respondent cannot be seen to take a different view in the matter, without any supporting material.”

¶42

In this case also, it is found that the petitioner has already obtained Consent to Establish from the Pollution Control Board and Land Development Permit from Panchayat as evidenced by Ext.P6.

¶43

In view of the Land Development Permit obtained

¶44

by the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that no Environmental Impact Assessment is required for grant of

¶45

¶46

¶47

NOC to the 4^th respondent. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to relief.

¶48

In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above, Ext.P16 order of the 2^nd respondent is set aside. The 2^nd respondent is directed to reconsider the application submitted by the 4^th respondent for NOC to establish Petroleum Retail Outlet and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of one month taking note of Ext.P6.

¶49

Sd/N. NAGARESH JUDGE

ncd/21.02.2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2355/2022

¶54

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶55

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.
	CRRO/RFT/ADVT/2018-19 DATED 04/10/2019.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION NO. CRO/AT/E&P DATED 02/12/2019.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT VIDE O. PCB/KO/ICE/378/2019.
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE
	FILE NOTES OBTAINED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 29/01/2021.
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT VIDE NO. A5-BA(29379) 2021 DATED 05/02/2021.
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE CLARIFICATION DATED 18/08/2021.
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO EXHIBIT P7.
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 18/08/2021.
Exhibit P10	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE GEOLOGIST TO EXHIBIT P9.
Exhibit P11	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER VIDE NO. DCKLM/11546/2019/M7 DATED 01/10/2021.
Exhibit P12	TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 20/10/2021.
Exhibit P13	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE APPEAL
	ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25/10/2021.
Exhibit P14	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16/11/2021 IN WPC NO. 25346/2021 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit P15	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER VIDE NO. LR/6072/2021/LR(A2) DATED 21/12/2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P16	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER VIDE NO. DCKLM/11546/2016-MZ DATED 05/01/2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶56

¶57

¶58

Exhibit P17	TRUE COPY OF	THE LETTER VIDE NO.
	0019/EC2/2022/SEI	AA DATED 12/01/2022
	ISSUED BY THE 6TH	RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P18	TRUE COPY OF	THE JUDGMENT DATED
	21/12/2021 IN WPC	NO. 23431/2021.

Aruna P., v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aruna P., 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K P Shajan Vs Thrissur Corporation

Kunnamkulam Nidhi Limited Vs Rajesh Verma

David P.V Vs Ministry of Environment

Sulochana, Vs the District Supply Officer

Kerala Association for Rural Development Vs Union of India

Saju B.V Vs State of Kerala