Allowed

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. the Chief Controller of Explosives

Kerala HC1 Nov 2023WP(C)/12891/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that since the landlords of the petitioner's property have consented to its continued operation and resolved internal disputes, the Competent Authority must reconsider the petitioner's license renewal application within one month.

What did the court decide?

Set aside impugned orders; directed Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives to reconsider license renewal application within one month after hearing parties.

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs the Chief… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 10TH KARTHIKA,

¶5

1945

¶6

WP(C) NO. 12891 OF 2021

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED
PB NO.1601,ERNAKULAM NORTH P.O.,
ERNAKULAM-682 018,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER,
MR.AMJADH MOHAMED

¶9

BY ADVS.
M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
K.JOHN MATHAI
JOSON MANAVALAN
KURYAN THOMAS
PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
RAJA KANNAN
NAYANPALLY RAMOLA

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES PETROLEUM & EXPLOSIVES SAFETY ORGANISATION, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, 'A' BLOCK, 5TH FLOOR, CGO COMPLEX, SEMINARY HILLS, NEGPUR -6400614, MAHARASTRA

¶12

2 THE JOINT CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES (HOD) AND APPEALLTE AUTHORITY, PETROLEUM & EXPLOSIVES SAFETY ORGANISATION, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, 'A' BLOCK, 5TH FLOOR, CGO COMPLEX, SEMINARY HILLS, NAGPUR -6400614, MAHARASTRA

¶13

3 THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPOLISIVES PETROLEUM & EXPLOSIVES SAFETY ORGANISATION, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, BLOCK C- 2, 3RD FLOOR, CGO COMPLEX, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM682 037

¶14

WPC 12891/21

¶15

..2..

¶16

4K.C.ANIL KUMAR,
MANAGING PARTNER, P.K.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR & CO
HP DEALERS, NF GATE, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM-682
301
5N.KRISHNAN,
SON OF MURALEEDHARA MARAR, NEDIUM VEEDU, HOUSE
NO.39/1276, KALATHIL PARAMBIL ROAD, ERNAKULAM-
682 016
6M.P.SAMPATH KUMAR,
SON OF M.N.PRAKASH, POSITIVE SYSTEMS, 39/1568,
MADAKKAPPILLY LANE, CHITTOOR ROAD, KOCHI,
ERNAKULAM-682 016
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA
A.K.HARIDAS, CGC
S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
Babu Cherukara
P.MARTIN JOSE
P.PRIJITH
THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
AJAY BEN JOSE
MANJUNATH MENON
R.GITHESH
HARIKRISHNAN S.
A.K.HARIDAS
JEES MARTIN(K/143/2022)
SRI. E.K.NANDAKUMAR (SR.)
SRI. BABU CHERUKARA, FOR R5 & R6

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 01.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

..3..

WPC 12891/21

JUDGMENT

The essential issue in this case is whether petitioner has a “right to the site” as mandated in Rule 152 (I)(i) of the Petroleum Rules 2018 qua the property on which they are operating the Retail Petroleum Outlet. This issue has arisen because, the landlord of the property in question, had revoked his permission for them to continue and an enquiry was thereupon conducted by the Authorities under the afore “Rules”, as to if petitioner would be entitled to seek renewal of their license under the Petroleum Rules 2002, but to find against them.

¶22

The files reveal that all the Authorities in the hierarchy, including the appellate Authorities, found that petitioner cannot be said to be having any “right” over the land where the facility is situated, when the landlord had revoked his permission.

¶23

However, Sri.Babu Cherukara - learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6 - who are admittedly the landlords of the property in question - today say that they have no objection in the petitioner being allowed to operate the

¶24

..4..

¶25

WPC 12891/21

¶26

petroleum outlet in their premises, since all their internecine disputes have been resolved. He added that, his clients have already filed an affidavit before this Court to such effect; and therefore, that they are willing to express their consent before the competent Authority also.

¶27

The learned Central Government Counsel – Sri.A.K.Haridas, conceded that all the impugned orders stem from the controversy as to whether petitioner has the “right to the site”, since respondent Nos. 5 and 6 had withdrawn their lease agreement executed earlier in their favour. He submitted that, however, since said respondents now say that disputes between the parties have been settled and they are willing to give their express consent for continuation of the petroleum outlet in their property, the matter can be reconsidered by the competent Authority - who is the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, Petroleum & Explosives Safety Organisation (PESO), Ernakulam.

¶28

Sri.Nandakumar, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.Paulose C.Abraham - learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner, vehemently submitted that the controversy in this case is no longer relevant because, once the landlords -

¶29

..5..

¶30

WPC 12891/21

¶31

namely respondent Nos.5 and 6 - have now given their consent, though affidavit filed before this Court, nothing stops the competent Authority from renewing the license in favour of this client.

¶32

There is substantial force in the afore submissions of the learned Senior Counsel, which is fortified by the above suggestions of the learned Central Government Counsel also.

¶33

In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and set aside Exts.P13, P14, P15, P18, P20 and P21; with a resultant direction to the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, PESO, Ernakulam, to reconsider Ext.P4 application of the petitioner for renewal, after hearing them, as also respondent Nos.5 and 6; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE

ACR

..6..

WPC 12891/21

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12891/2021

¶40

`PETITIO` `Exhibit`	`NER EXHI` `P1`	`BITS` `A TRUE COPY OF LEAS` `1994 DATED 23.12.19` `THE PETITIONER AND`	`E DEED NO.5154 OF` `94 EXECUTED BETWEEN` `SMT LAKSHMI MARAR`
`Exhibit`	`P2`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `01.12.2011 SUBMITTE` `REQUESTING A RENEWA` `CLAUSE 2 (C) OF EXH`	`LETTER DATED` `D BY THE PETITIONER` `L IN TERMS OF` `IBIT P1`
`Exhibit`	`P3`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `01.07.2016 ISSUED B` `RESPONDENT TO THE P` `LICENSE NO.P/SC/KL/` `TILL 31.12.2018`	`COMMUNICATION DATED` `Y THE 3RD` `ETITIONER RENEWING` `14/716 (P35677)`
`Exhibit`	`P4`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED 24.12.2018 SU` `PETITIONER TO THE 3` `(WITHOUT ENCLOSURE)`	`RENEWAL APPLICATION` `BMITTED BY THE` `TD RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit`	`P5`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `19.06.2019 FROM THE` `THE PETITIONER (ALO` `REPRESENTATION)`	`COMMUNICATION DATED` `3RD RESPONDENT TO` `NG WITH`
`Exhibit`	`P6`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `EXPLANATION LETTER` `SUBMITTED BY PETITI` `RESPONDENT`	`DETAILED` `DATED 06.07.2019` `ONER TO THE 3RD`
`Exhibit`	`P7`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `26.05.2020 ISSUED T` `THE 3RD RESPONDENT`	`LETTER DATED` `O THE PETITIONER BY`
`Exhibit`	`P8`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `13.11.2020, ISSUED` `RESPONDENT PURSUANT` `OF THIS HON'BLE COU` `NO.15563/2020`	`ORDER DATED` `BY THE 3RD` `TO THE DIRECTION` `RT IN WPC`
`Exhibit`	`P9`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `22.12.2020 OF THIS` `WPC NO.20574 OF 202`	`JUDGMENT DATED` `HON'BLE COURT IN` `0`
`Exhibit`	`P10`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `16.01.2021 ISSUED B` `THE 5TH RESPONDENT`	`NOTICE DATED` `Y THE PETITIONER TO`
`Exhibit`	`P11`	`A TRUE COPY OF WRIT`	`TEN SUBMISSIONS`

¶41

WPC 12891/21

¶42

..7..

¶43

DATED 21.01.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P12A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED
30.01.2021 BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO
EXHIBIT P10 NOTICE
Exhibit P13A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
01.02.2021 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P14A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
01.02.2021 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P15A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
02.02.2021 FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO
THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P16A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED
08.02.2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON
09.02.2021 (WITHOUT ANNEXURES THERETO)
Exhibit P17A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
16.2.2021 IN WPC 3495 OF 2021
Exhibit P18A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
19.2.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P19A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION
DATED 05.03.2021 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER IN EXHIBIT P16 APPEAL
Exhibit P20A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 09.04.2021
OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R5(a)True copy of the representation dated
18-08-2023 to PESO submitted by the
6th respondent.
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P21A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
28/4/2021 ALONG WITH THE ORDER

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. the Chief Controller of Explosives

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. the Chief Controller of Explosives

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aswin Ashokan Vs Union of India

Jinu James Kandathil Vs the Chief Engineer

Jinu James Kandathil Vs the Superintending Engineer

Perfect Engineers and Contractors, Vs State of Kerala

Asif Azad Vs Haja Maheen

Dr. Giridas P.B., Vs Animal Welfare Board of India