Disposed

Aboobacker K.M v. the Regional Officer

Kerala HC10 Jul 2024WP(C)/22390/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner allotted a petroleum retail outlet by NH 766 sought extension of provisional access permission after work exceeded the one-year limit; the request was returned citing an unfinalised DPR for road widening. The court directed the Regional Officer to consider and decide the access permission application after hearing parties within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 1st respondent to consider the access permission application after hearing within two weeks; formal Access Permission to issue within one week if favourable.

Aboobacker K.M Vs the Regional Officer — Kerala HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 22390 OF 2024

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ABOOBACKER K.M AGED 53 YEARS S/O HUSSAIN HAJI,
KIZHEKKE MUNDOTT -
PULLANNOOR, MALAYAMMA, NIT P.O, KOZHIKODE, PIN -
673001
BY ADVS. R.SUNIL KUMAR A.SALINI LAL ARUN KRISHNA JINU
P. BINU

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE REGIONAL OFFICER MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, OPPOSITE TO MUSEUM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-, PIN - 695033

¶10

2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD NATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISION KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001

¶11

3 NAYARA ENERGY LIMITED REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER INFRA FUTURA BUILDING, 602 6TH FLOOR, OPP BHARATA MATA COLLEGE SEA PORT-AIRPORT ROAD, THRIKKAKARA KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682021

¶12

4 ADDL.R4. PROJECT DIRECTOR PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNITKOZHIKODE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA 34/743-B, VAISHNAVAM, BEHIND POPULAR VEHICLE MARUTHI SHOWROOM, CIVIL STATION PO-673020-KOZHIKODE DISTRICT [IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 27.06.2024 IN I.A.1/2024 IN WP(C)22390/2024]

¶13

SRI. SUNILKUMAR KURIAKOSE, SR. GP, SRI. T.C. KRISHNA ( DSG IN CHARGE).

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

W.P.(C)No.22390 OF 2024

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT Dated this the 10^th day of July, 2024 Petitioner has been allotted a petroleum

¶18

retail outlet in Engapuzha Village of Kozhikode District,

¶19

by the side of NH 766. At the request of the 3^rd

¶20

respondent /Oil Marketing Company, Exhibit P2 NOC was issued by the District Collector and Exhibit P3 provisional access permission by the 1^st respondent. As the work could not be completed within the one year stipulated in Exhibit P3, the 3^rd respondent applied for extension of time. The request for extension was returned by Exhibit P7, referring to a proposal for widening of NH 766, as per the DPR, which is yet to be finalized.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even going by the proposal in the DPR, the petitioner has provided sufficient space and unless provisional access permission is extended, the petitioner will be put to undue prejudice and loss. Learned counsel also relied on Exhibit P9 judgment

¶22

W.P.(C)No.22390 OF 2024

¶23

¶24

rendered by this Court under similar circumstances.

¶25

Heard Sri.R.Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for

¶26

the petitioner, Sri.Sunilkumar Kuriakose, learned Senior Government Pleader and Adv.T.C.Krishnan, the learned DSGI in charge.

¶27

In the light of the undertaking given by the petitioner that he will abide by the 'DPR' and the widening, if any, in future, subject to his remedies against the same, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 1^st respondent to consider the application for access permission and take a decision thereon, after hearing the parties, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. If the decision is in the petitioner's favour, the 2^nd respondent shall issue formal "Access Permission" to the petitioner, within a period of one week thereafter.

¶28

Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE

¶29

SSK/10/07

¶30

W.P.(C)No.22390 OF 2024

¶31

¶32

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22390/2024

¶33

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶34

Exhibit P1COPY OF THE OFFER LETTER ISSUED BY THE3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 31/3/20
Exhibit P2COPY THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED 29/10/22
Exhibit P3COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL NOC ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 19/1/22
Exhibit P4COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20/12/22
Exhibit P5COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 8/2/23
Exhibit P6COPY OF THE LETTER NO. EENH-DVOKKD/187/2022-D3-PWD
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
DATED 6/4/24
Exhibit P7COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO
THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 2/5/24
Exhibit P8COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE GUIDE LINES
ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND
HIGHWAYS DATED 26/6/2020
Exhibit P9COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) NO: 27023/23 DATED
3/11/23

¶35

SSK //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Aboobacker K.M v. the Regional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aboobacker K.M v. the Regional Officer

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

P.V. Shaji Vs the District Supply Officer

Jyothi Vs The Chief Executive Officer

Anjali Raghunadan a Vs State of Kerala

Idbi Bank Ltd. Vs Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

K. Subramanian Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. Represented by Its Chairman

The Mannam Sugar Mills Co-Operative Ltd., Represented by Its Managing Director Vs Pandalam Municipality, Represented by Its Secretary