Allowed

K.Priya v. The District Collector

Madras HC19 Dec 2018WP/11036/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the writ petition quashing the District Collector's order cancelling a building permit for an LPG godown, holding the action violated natural justice due to lack of notice and enquiry. The petitioner was directed to adhere to an undertaking not to store loaded cylinders during temple festivals.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of 12.04.2018 quashed; petitioner directed not to store loaded LPG cylinders for 10 days during the temple festival.

K.Priya Vs The District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated: 19..12..2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶6

Writ Petition No.11036 of 2018
and
W.M.P.No.12943 of 2018
K.Priya
... Petitioner
-Versus-
1.The District Collector,
Nagapattinam District.
2.The Special Officer/Block Development Officer,
Chettipulam Panchayat,
Vedaranyam Taluk,
Nagapattinam District.
3.The District Officer,
Fire and Rescue Service Department,
Nagapattinam District.
4.G.Kannan *
[*Impleaded as per order of this court dated
23.07.2018 in W.M.P.No.18729of 2018]
... Respondents

¶7

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 2nd respondent relating to the impugned proceedings in Se.Mu.Na.No.344/18/AA1 dated 12.04.2018 and to quash the same as without jurisdiction, arbitrary and against the provisions of law.

¶8

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶9

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.Suhrith Parthasarathy For Respondents : Mr.V.Prabhu, GA for R1 to R3

¶11

Mr.K.Gandhikumar for R4

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the

¶14

2nd respondent dated 12.04.2018 in Se.Mu.Na.No.344/18/AA1 cancelling the building permit granted in favour of the petitioner

¶15

under Se.Mu.Na.Ka.344/2018/AA1 dated 20.03.2018.

¶16

The case of the petitioner is that he is an authorized distributor of Liquefied Petroleum Gas for Indian Oil Corporation at Chettipulam in Vedaranyam Taluk, Nagapattinam District and for the purpose of storing LPG cylinders, he had proposed to put up a godown in the land belonging to his family comprised in S.No.297/2B measuring an extent of 70 cents, situate at Chettipulam Village. He obtained approval from the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives on 19.02.2018 and no objection certificate from the District Authorities. Thereafter, when he had approached the 3rd respondent for NOC for the commencement of construction, the 3rd respondent, after having inspected the site personally submitted a report on

¶17

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶18

¶19

08.03.2018,granted a no objection certificate on 09.03.2018 with certain conditions ensuring precautionary safety measures as per Section 13 of The Fire Service Act, 1985. In the mean time, the 2nd respondent, based on the complaint received from a third party, had sent a communication dated 12.03.2018 to the 3rd respondent calling for report on the objections. The 3rd respondent, after having considered, the rival allegations against the construction of go-down had submitted a report dated 16.03.2018 with an observation that the proposed go-down would not in any manner affect the safety of the general public and further observed that there is no electricity line passing through the proposed location and as such, there is no possibility of fire accident.

¶20

Further, according to the petitioner, only after having fully satisfied that all the formalities had been complied with, he was granted building permit by the 2nd respondent to construct the godown for for storing the LPG cylinders. Pursuant to such permit, he had completed the construction of go-down. While so, all of a sudden the 2nd respondent has passed the impugned order cancelling the building permit granted in favour of him based on the representation

¶21

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶22

¶23

given by the Manager of one Sri Mazhaimari Amman Temple, on the ground that every year the temple used to conduct festival for 10 days, during which thousands of general public would gather and fire crackers would also be displayed, and there is a high tension line passing through nearby the proposed location and, as such, there is every possibility of fire accident during festivities. The grievance of the petitioner is that no notice was issued to him before cancelling the permit issued and the impugned order has been passed in total violation of principles of natural justice and the same is, therefore, liable to be set aside.

¶24

The 2nd respondent has filed his counter affidavit admitting the grant of building permit in favour of the petitioner. However, according to him, the building permission granted to the petitioner was subsequently cancelled pursuant to the enquiry conducted based on the representation made by the 4th respondent. During the enquiry it was found that there is likelihood of fire accident in the festival days by the fireworks.

¶25

The 4th respondent has filed his counter affidavit stating that

¶26

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶27

¶28

if the petitioner is permitted to construct the proposed go-down nearby temple, there is every possibility of fire accident during festival time and there is also high tension electricity line passing through nearby the proposed locality and if any accident takes place the same would cause serious injuries to the thousands of devotees and general public who assemble there during festivities.

¶29

The 3rd respondent - Assistant District Officer, Fire & Rescue Services Department has filed his counter affidavit contending that based on the application for building plan permit, the proposed site was inspected and during inspection it was found that suifficent side set back of 10 meter is available all around the proposed godwown site and the same was situated 60 - 70 meters away from the alleged temple and as such the same will not in any way cause danger to the devotees or the general public during temple festival. Further, according to him, there was no high/low tension electrical lines passing through the proposed go-down and only after having considered all the aspects of fire safety measures, no objection certificate was issued to the petitioner on fire service point of view to accord building permit to the proposed go-down.

¶30

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶31

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, after having obtained all necessary no objection certificates from the authorities concerned including that of the no objection certificate from the 3rd respondent department, had applied for approval and on being satisfied with the documents submitted in support of the application for building permit, approval was granted by the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, without any notice whatsoever and conducting any enquiry, simply based on the representation of the 4th respondent, the 2nd respondent had arbitrarily passed the impugned order cancelling the building plan permit granted earlier which is against the principles of natural justice and the same is therefore, liable to be set aside.

¶33

The learned counsel for the 4th respondent, per contra, would contend that only after having taken note of the nature of the business for which the proposed go-down is sought to be erected and the likelihood of fire accident at the time of temple festival and also the high tension electrical lines passing through the proposed locality, the permission granted to the petitioner was cancelled and

¶34

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶35

¶36

the same is liable to be sustained.

¶37

I have considered the rival submissions and also perused the available records carefully.

¶38

From the perusal of the available records, it could be seen that the before applying for building plan approval, the petitioner had obtained necessary no objection certificates from the Explosives Department as well as the 3rd respondent - Fire and Rescue Department. The 3rd respondent who inspected the proposed site had submitted a detailed report stating that the proposed go-down is situated 70 meters away from the alleged temple and as such, the proposed go-down would not cause any danger to the devotees and the general public. After having considered the same, the building permit was granted to the petitioner. While so, now, based on the objections from the villagers that during festival time, large number of devotees / general public would gather and during bursting of crackers, there is likelihood of fire accident and there is also every possibility of explosion of LPG cylinders and in that event, the lives of the thousands of devotees would be put to danger, the 2nd

¶39

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶40

¶41

respondent had cancelled the building permit. But, all such aspects were taken into consideration by the Fire and Rescue Department while issuing no objection certificate and on that basis only building permit was accorded to the petitioner. Whereas in the absence of any material to substantiate that there is a possibility of fire accident, if the proposed go-down is allowed to be erected nearby the temple premises, the 3rd respondent ought not to have accepted the objection of the 4th respondent or from any general public. Apart from that, admittedly, no notice was issued to the petitioner and no enquiry was conducted before cancelling the building permit by way of the impugned order which is, in the considered opinion of this court, against the principles of natural justice and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

¶42

For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned order canceling the building plan permit granted earlier to the petitioner is liable to be set aside.

¶43

At this juncture, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent submitted that near the proposed go-down, during festival, large

¶44

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶45

¶46

number of people would gather and in order to ensure the safety of the devotees and general public, suitable directions may be given to the petitioner not to keep the filled LPG cylinders, at least, during festival season for 10 days. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, conceded for the request and submitted that the petitioner, without prejudice his contention, undertakes that she would not store the loaded LPG cylinders in the go-down during festival days. He has filed an undertaking affidavit to that effect. The relevant portion of the undertaking given by the petitioner reads as follows:-

¶47

"2. I state that without prejudice my right in running the LPG Distributorship and go-down namely 'SRI MUNISWARA INDANE GRAMIN VITRAK' I hereby given an undertaking to the effect that I will not store the loaded LPG cylinder in the subject matter premises during the 10 days festival conducted in the month of May every year in the 'Sri Mazhaimariamman Temple' at Chettipulam Village, Nagapattinam District."

¶48

The said statement of the petitioner is recorded.

¶49

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶50

¶51

In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Se.Mu.Na.No.344/18/AA1 dated 12.04.2018 is hereby quashed. However, the petitioner is directed not to store the loaded LPG cylinders in the proposed godown for 10 days during festival being conducted every year at Sri Mazhaimariamman Temple in Chettipulam Village, Nagapattinam

¶52

District as undertaken by her. No costs. Consequently, connected WMP is closed. Index : yes / no 19..12..2018 Internet : yes / no Speaking / Non Speaking Order kmk To

¶53

1.The District Collector, Nagapattinam District.

¶54

2.The Special Officer/Block Development Officer, Chettipulam Panchayat, Vedaranyam Taluk, Nagapattinam District.

¶55

3.The District Officer, Fire and Rescue Service Department, Nagapattinam District.

¶56

http://www.judis.nic.in

V.BHARATHIDASAN.J.,

kmk

W.P.No.11036 of 2018
19..12..2018

¶61

http://www.judis.nic.in

K.Priya v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Priya 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

The Tamil Evangelical, Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

K.Raghavan, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Mr.Munusamy, S/o. Kannan Vs The Chairman

K.Dhayanadhi Vs The Election Commissioner

G.Manimaran Vs Inspector of Police

B.Susindra, Vs The Commissioner & Special