Allowed

Rajeev K v. the District Collector

Kerala HC12 Dec 2023WP(C)/6642/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the District Collector to issue an NOC to the petitioner for shifting his petroleum outlet to unacquired land. It also ordered NHAI authorities to grant expansion permissions subject to fees, with a timeline of one month for compliance and verification of facts.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 1st respondent to grant requisite 'NOC' within one month and respondents 3 and 4 to grant necessary expansion permissions also within one month, subject to verification and fees.

Rajeev K Vs the District Collector — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 6642 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

RAJEEV K, PROPRIETOR,
M/S.PARIMANAM PETROLEUM,
NEENDAKARA, KOLLAM – 691582.

¶8

BY ADVS.
M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI
K.JAJU BABU (SR.)
BRIJESH MOHAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM - 691 013.

¶11

2 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD, ERNAKULAM NORTH.P.O, ERNAKULAM - 682018, REPRESENTED BY - ITS CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER (RETAIL).

¶12

3 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, PETTA PO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695024.

¶13

4 NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, PETTA PO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695024 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICER.

¶14

BY ADVS.SMT.FARHA MATHER K.B.
E.C.KURIAKOSE
LEJO JOSEPH GEORGE(K/357-C/2017)
SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE, GP

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶16

12.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C) NO. 6642 OF 2023

¶18

-2-

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The petitioner is a dealer of petroleum
products under the 2nd respondent – Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL); and he

¶21

concedes that a portion of the property, which
was used for the afore purpose, has now been
acquired for construction of a National Highway.

¶22

therefore, preferred an application, on his

¶23

behalf, for a No Objection Certificate (NOC)
before the 1st respondent – District Collector,

¶24

for shifting the outlet to the portion
unacquired and to the extreme back side of the
property now available, particularly because the
Fuel Tank is also in that area; but that this

¶25

has not been considered by the said Authority.

¶26

3.The petitioner, therefore, prays that 1st

¶27

respondent be directed to take up Exts.P1, P2

¶28

and P8 applications and issue an ‘NOC’ as

¶29

WP(C) NO. 6642 OF 2023

¶30

-3-

¶31

required; with a further direction to
respondents 3 and 4 to consider Ext.P9
application, adverting to Ext.P10, leading to
grant of permission for expansion of the retail
outlet,consequenttotheacquisition

¶32

proceedings.

¶33

4.Sri.Brijesh Mohan – learned counsel for

¶34

the petitioner, explained that his client is now
put to a piquant situation because, though the
outlet has been operating for the last several
years, it has now been impeded on account of the
construction activities being carried out by the
National Highway Authority of India (NHAI),
especially because a portion of the area, where

¶35

the Unit was in existence, has been acquired. He
submitted that, therefore, the only available
option for his client is to shift the Dispensing
Unit to the other portion of the property, which
is not under acquisition; and that this would

¶36

WP(C) NO. 6642 OF 2023

¶37

benefit everyone, because the Fuel Tank is

¶38

already in that area, which causes no danger to
either the continuing work, or to any of the
stakeholdersofthe‘NHAI’.Hethus

¶39

reiteratingly prayed that the reliefs sought for
in this writ petition be granted.

¶40

5.Smt.Farha Mather K.B. – learned counsel

¶41

appearing for the 2nd respondent, affirmed that

¶42

her client has made an application on behalf of
the petitioner and that they stand by the same.
She then submitted that, it is her client's firm
position that the requests made by them and the
petitioner, throughtheaforementioned
representations,beforethecompetent

¶43

Authorities, are deserving of being granted
because, it will cause no danger to anyone; and,
in fact, would subserve public interest since
the Dispensing Unit would be much away from the
National Highway and its allied facilities.

¶44

WP(C) NO. 6642 OF 2023

¶45

-5-

¶46

6.Sri.E.C.Kuriakose – learned Standing

¶47

Counsel for the NHAI, submitted that his client
does not stand in the way of the reliefs, sought

¶48

for by the petitioner, being granted; but that

¶49

they are apprehensive that, if the Fuel

¶50

Dispensing Unit is allowed to continue, it would
cause danger in future, on account of the
expansion of the National Highway. He, however,
conceded that the area identified by the ‘HPCL’
and the petitioner, for translocating the
Dispensing Unit, is not part of the acquired
property and is at a safe distance.

¶51

7.When I evaluate and consider the afore
rival submissions, it is indubitable that an

¶52

ongoing concern cannot be stopped or terminated
merely because of the expansion of National

¶53

Highway. However, the safety requirements of

¶54

both the National Highway and the Fuel

¶55

Dispensing Unit will have to be ensured and

¶56

WP(C) NO. 6642 OF 2023

¶57

-6-

¶58

balanced by the competent Authority.

¶59

8.Prima facie, it appears that petitioner
is still in possession of areas beyond the
acquired extent, for shifting the Dispensing

¶60

Unit; and he says that fuel tank is already
installed in that area. If this be so,
certainly, the 1strespondent, as also
respondents 3 and 4, must look into this and

¶61

take a final decision, as requested by the
petitioner.

¶62

In the afore circumstances, I order this

¶63

writ petition with the following directions:

¶64

(a) The 1st respondent is directed to take up
Exts.P1, P2 and P8 applications and grant the
requisite ‘NOC’ to the petitioner, after hearing
him, as also respondents 2 and 3 if there are no
other legal impediments. This shall be done, as
expeditiously as is possible, but not later than
one month from the date of receipt of a copy of

¶65

WP(C) NO. 6642 OF 2023

¶66

-7-

¶67

this judgment.

¶68

petitioner is able to obtain ‘NOC’, then the
competent among respondents 3 and 4 will take up

¶69

his Ext.P9 application and grant necessary
permissions thereunder, adverting to Ext.P10 and
subject to the remittance of necessary fee by
him; thus culminating in an appropriate order
and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously
as is possible, but not later than one month
thereafter.

¶70

(c) Needless to say and merely for the

¶71

purpose of reiterated clarity, this Court has
not affirmed the veracity of the assertions of

¶72

the petitioner and that it will be up to the
District Collector to verify all the germane
facts - including through proper inspections, as
may be warranted - while directions in (a) above
are complied with.

¶73

WP(C) NO. 6642 OF 2023

¶74

(d) It also goes without saying that, until

¶75

such time as the afore exercise is completed and

¶76

the resultant order communicated to the
petitioner, the interim order granted by this
Court on 23.11.2023 will continue to be in

¶77

effect.

¶78

Sd/-

¶79

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶80

JUDGE

¶81

akv

¶82

WP(C) NO. 6642 OF 2023

¶83

-9-

¶84

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6642/2023

¶85

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶86

`EXHIBIT P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED` `BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT` `COLLECTOR ON 08.09.2020.`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST` `NO.CRO/AT/E&PI DATED 4-10-2020` `SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE` `THE 1ST RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED` `12.10.2020 FORWARDED BY THE 1ST` `RESPONDENT TO DIFFERENT AUTHORITIES.`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B-3930/2021` `DATED 16-1-2021 FORWARDED BY THE` `REGIONAL FIRE OFFICER, FIRE AND RESCUE` `SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE` `1ST RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE` `DATED 7-3-2021 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT` `ENVIRONMENT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE` `POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED` `29.11.2021 REGARDING THE RENEWAL OF` `EXPLOSIVE LICENSE UPTO 31.12.2024` `ISSUED BY THE PETROLEUM AND EXPLOSIVES` `SAFETY ORGANISATION.`
`EXHIBIT P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE NO.29/2022-` `2023/SC-3/761/22 DATED 11-5-2022` `ISSUED BY THE NEENDAKARA GRAMA` `PANCHAYAT TO THE PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED` `13.04.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER` `BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.`

¶87

WP(C) NO. 6642 OF 2023

¶88

-10-

¶89

EXHIBIT P9TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE
APPLICATION VIDE
NO.20211210/2/2/8819/20709 SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT ON 14.12.2021
EXHIBIT P10TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT SHOWING THE
REMITTANCE OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.10,000/-
DATED 14-12-2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
19-10-2023 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶90

EXHIBIT P12TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING
THE BLOCKADES CREATED BY RESPONDENTS 3
AND 4.

¶91

EXHIBIT P13TRUE COPY OF AWARD NO.NDKA 0359 DATED
14-3-2022 ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL DEPUTY
COLLECTOR (LAND ACQUISITION), NATIONAL
HIGHWAY AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY,
KOLLAM.

¶92

RESPONDENT ANNEXURES

¶93

ANNEXURE R3(A)TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD U/S 3G(1) DATED
25.03.2022
ANNEXURE R3(B)TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S 3E DATED
30.10.2021

Rajeev K v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev K v. the District Collector

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

Jessy Biju Vs Union of India

Rosily George Vs the District Collector

C.Girishadas Vs the Director, Animal Husbandry Dept

Vijaya Vs Hdfc Bank Ltd.

Binil M.V Vs M/S. Tata Motors Finance Ltd.

Market Shop Owners Welfare Association, Vs State of Kerala