Marysadan Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs the District Collector, Ernakulam

MARYSADAN PROJECTS PVT. LTD. MARYSADAN BUILDING, NEELEESWARAM P.O., KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIBY BABY, W/O SUBIN GEORGE, AGED 34 YEARS, EDATHALA HOUSE, NEELEESWARAM P.O., KALADY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683574

¶11

BY ADVS. JACOB E SIMON R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN (SR.)(K/292/1989)

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682030

¶14

2 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682030

¶15

3 THE TAHSILDAR ALUVA TALUK OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION, PERIYAR NAGAR, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683101

¶16

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER KALADY VILLAGE OFFICE, MEKALADY, KALADY, VADAKKUMBHAGOM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683574

¶17

5 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., IRIMPANAM INSTALLATION, SEAPORT AIRPORT ROAD, IRIMPANAM P.O., ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, PIN - 682309

¶18

WP(C) NO. 8333 OF 2025

¶19

2

¶20

2025:KER:25410

¶21

BY ADVS. GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR M. K.JOHN MATHAI(K/413/1984) JOSON MANAVALAN(J-526) KURYAN THOMAS(K/131/2003) PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM(MAH/58/2006) RAJA KANNAN(K/356/2008) NAYANPALLY RAMOLA(K/687-F/2014)

¶22

OTHER PRESENT:

¶23

GP SRI S RENJITH SC SRI BENNY P THOMAS

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

WP(C) NO. 8333 OF 2025

3

2025:KER:25410

C.S.DIAS, J.

WP(C) No. 8333 OF 2025

¶30

----------------------------------------Dated this the 21^st day of March, 2025

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P12 letter, and

¶33

direct the 1^st respondent to issue a No-Objection Certificate (NOC) in favour of the 5^th respondent Corporation, to commission a petroleum retail outlet in the petitioner's property.

¶34

The petitioner has preferred an application before the 5^th respondent to establish a petroleum retail outlet in their property. The 5^th respondent has forwarded the petitioner's application with a letter of intent to the 1^st respondent for permission under the Petroleum Rules. The 1^st respondent called for reports from the statutory authorities. By Ext.P5 report, the Malayattoor Neeleswaram Grama Panchayath has certified that there are no residential buildings within 50 meters from the proposed retail outlet. Similarly, by Ext.P7 report, the Fire and Rescue Department has issued a NOC. However, the 4^th

¶35

WP(C) NO. 8333 OF 2025

¶36

4

¶37

2025:KER:25410 respondent has submitted Ext.P9 report to the 3^rd respondent stating that there are no schools, hospitals, river, streams, canals, thodu or water sources, but there is a 'nilam' within 50 meters from the proposed outlet with no water source. Consequently, the 2^nd respondent conducted physical inspection of the property and he was satisfied that the petitioner's property is 'purayidam'. Subsequently, the 1^st respondent has sought for a clarification from the 4^th respondent. By Ext.P11 report, the 4^th respondent has stated that the petitioner's property is a 'converted purayidam' as per the Basic Tax Register (BTR) and there is no water source within 50 meters from the retail outlet. Even though the adjacent property is classified as 'nilam' in the BTR, the same is also converted land and there are buildings constructed in the property. After the receipt of all the reports, the 1^st respondent has sent Ext.P12 communication to the petitioner reporting that, as wet land would also fall within the category of nilam and there is a wet land within 50 meters from the proposed outlet, the application for NOC cannot be considered. Ext.P12 letter is

¶38

WP(C) NO. 8333 OF 2025

¶39

5

¶40

2025:KER:25410 issued on a misinterpretation of the Central Pollution Control Board norms. The norms only stipulate that there should not be any water source or wet land within 50 meters from the petroleum retail outlet. Ext.P12 letter is erroneous and is issued without any application of mind. Hence, Ext.P12 letter may be quashed.

¶41

The 2^nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations in the writ petition. He has contended that, as per the addendum to the guidelines of the Central Pollution Control Board No.B-13011/1/201920/AQM dated 16.08.2021, a petroleum retail outlet shall not be located within a distance of 50 meters from the nearest point of a water body. Accordingly, a clarification was sought from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board regarding the applicability of the provisions of the Central Pollution Control Board guidelines in cases where a property is situated within 50 meters radius of the proposed retail outlet is recorded as 'nilam' in the revenue records, but is visibly dry land. In response to the said clarification, the Chief Environmental Engineer has stated

¶42

WP(C) NO. 8333 OF 2025

¶43

6

¶44

2025:KER:25410

¶45

that application can be considered based on the land category recorded in the revenue records. Additionally it was clarified that the application cannot be considered if land recorded as 'nilam' is treated as 'wet land'. The Pollution Control Board has also issued Ext.R2(b) letter stating that, it was not within their powers to state whether 'nilam' is 'wet land' or not. The petitioner's application has not been rejected, but is kept on the hold for clarification. Hence, the writ petition is to be dismissed.

¶46

Heard; the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents 1 to 4 and the learned Standing Counsel for the 5^th respondent.

¶47

The core of the dispute is regarding the interpretation of paragraph (a) of Ext.P13 guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board, which reads as follows:

¶48

“a) All the surface water bodies irrespective of utility shall be protected from any possible contamination. These include lakes, ponds, streams, rivers, wetlands, canals and creeks, as per revenue records. Retail outlets shall not be located within a distance of 50 meters from the nearest point of

¶49

WP(C) NO. 8333 OF 2025

¶50

7

¶51

2025:KER:25410 water bodies. In case of flood way is not defined, the distance shall be considered from firm banks/edge of river. The siting criterion is to be implemented for all new petrol pumps where construction by OMCs starts post the issuance of these guidelines”.

¶52

A plain reading of the above clause demonstrates that, retail outlets shall not be established within a distance of 50 meters from any water body.

¶53

The expression 'water body' has not been defined in Ext.P13 guidelines. Wikipedia states that a water body means any significant accumulation of water, which refers to oceans, seas, lakes, and includes smaller pools of water such as ponds and wetlands.

¶54

In the counter affidavit filed by the 2^nd respondent, it is evident that the 4^th respondent has unambiguously stated that the petitioners' property is classified as 'purayidam' and the adjacent property is classified as 'nilam' in the BTR. It is no one's case that the adjacent property is a water body falling within the foul of Ext.P13 guidelines. Therefore, the clarification sought by the 1^st respondent was unnecessary.

¶55

WP(C) NO. 8333 OF 2025

¶56

8

¶57

2025:KER:25410 9. Going by the mandate in Ext.P13 guidelines, the prohibition to commission a retail outlet is only when there is a water body within 50 meters from the proposed retail outlet. The said restriction is incorporated in the guidelines with an intention to avert contamination/pollution of the water body due to any seepage from the retail outlet.

¶58

In the case at hand, as the adjacent property is not a wetland and there is no water body, there is no prohibition to establish the retail outlet. The classification of the property by the State as 'purayidam' and 'nilam' is only for the purpose of paying land tax. [Read the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in RDO, Fort Cochin & others vs. Jalaja Dileep and another (2015 (2) KHC 109)].

¶59

In the above conspectus, I do not find any legal impediment in the 1^st respondent proceeding with the application submitted by the 5^th respondent for NOC, to establish the retail outlet in the petitioner's property.

¶60

In the light of the above discussions, especially in view of the counter affidavit of the 2^nd respondent, I am

¶61

WP(C) NO. 8333 OF 2025

¶62

9

¶63

2025:KER:25410

¶64

inclined to allow the writ petition. Accordingly, I direct the

¶65

1^st respondent to consider and dispose of the application submitted by the 5^th respondent, in accordance with law, and as expeditiously as possible, as per the observations made in the judgment, at any rate, within one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

rkc/21.03.25

WP(C) NO. 8333 OF 2025

¶70

10

¶71

2025:KER:25410

¶72

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8333/2025

¶73

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶74

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED IN THE NAME OF MARYSADAN APG PVT. LTD DATED 10.04.2024 FOR THE YEAR 2024-2025 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KALADY
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE JOINT CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES DATED 18.06.2024
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND MARYSADAN APG PVT. LTD DATED 27.06.2024
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.07.2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 12.08.2024 OF THE SECRETARY, MALAYATTOOR NEELESWARAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6	TRUE OF THE UNDERTAKING ALONG WITH THE LIST OF VEHICLES OF THE PETITIONER, DATED 19.08.2024
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT FIRE OFFICER, FIRE AND RESCUE DATED 21.08.2024
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.08.2024 SUBMITTED BY ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE PERUMBAVOOR TO THE DISTRICT POLICE OFFICER, ERNAKULAM RURAL
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 29.08.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P10	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 12.02.2025
Exhibit P11	TRUE COPY THE REPORT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 17.02.2025 SUBMITTED TO THE 1ST

¶75

WP(C) NO. 8333 OF 2025

11

2025:KER:25410

RESPONDENT

Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.02.2025 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

¶80

Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM ALONG WITH THE GUIDELINES OF THE CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DATED 16.08.2021

¶81

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶82

EXHIBIT R2(a) True copy of the letter dated 16.11.2024 of the 2nd respondent to the Chief Environmental Engineer, Kerala State Pollution Control Board.

¶83

EXHIBIT R2(b) True copy of the letter dated 04.12.2024 to the District Collector, Ernakulam. EXHIBIT R2(c) True copy of the letter dated 28.10.2024 issued by Environmental Engineer to the District Collector, Ernakulam.

Marysadan Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. the District Collector, Ernakulam

Case brief

What is this about?

Marysadan Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. the District Collector, Ernakulam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chakkeeri Shaik Abdulla Vs Ayyob H.T

Hashir P P Vs the Bank Manager

Mishab Munavvir Vs Canara Bank

Anitha Krishnakumar Vs the District Collector, Ernakulam

Neji Ethiyil Musthafa Vs the District Collector, Ernakulam

Abdul Basith Mk Vs Union of India