Dismissed

B.Mahesh Kumar v. The District Revenue Officer

Madras HC11 Dec 2020WP/15689/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner seeks writ direction for NOC to set up retail outlet. Court notes outlet location violates distance guidelines by 13 meters but was informed of allowable 10% relaxation. Directs concerned authorities to convene meeting within six weeks to grant relaxation on merits if fifth respondent agrees, protecting petitioner's invested funds.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to consider the case based on the fifth respondent's recommendation within six weeks to grant 10% relaxation for the No Objection Certificate. No costs.

B.Mahesh Kumar Vs The District Revenue Officer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 11.12.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA

¶5

W.P.No.15689 of 2020

¶6

B.Mehesh Kumar .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Tiruppur District,
Tiruppur.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Tiruppur City,
Tiruppur.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tiruppur.
4.The District Fire and Rescue Officer,
Tiruppur.
5.The Divisional Engineer,
Highways Department,
Tiruppur. .. Respondents
* * *
Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing
the 1 st respondent herein to consider the granting of NOC to
the petitioner for setting up the retail outlet for selling MS
& MSD products as franchisee for M/s.Nayara Energy Ltd., at
S.F.No.753, T.S.No.702/1, Thennampalayam, Nallur Village,
Palladam Road, Tiruppur District within the stipulated period.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Govi Ganesan For Respondents : Mr.V.Shanmugasundar Special Government Pleader

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

The writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the first respondent to consider granting of NOC to the petitioner for setting up the retail outlet for selling MS & MSD products as franchisee for M/s.Nayara Energy Ltd., at S.F.No.753, T.S.No.702/1, Thennampalayam, Nallur Village, Palladam Road, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Tiruppur District.

¶10

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶11

The petitioner has been running an Auto LPG Dispensing Station at S.F.No.753, T.S.No.702/1, Thennampalayam, Nallur Village, Tiruppur South Taluk & District as a Franchisee for M/s.Total Gas. The said LPG station was discontinued and the franchisee was cancelled. Subsequently, in the same place, the petitioner received an appointment letter dated 31.07.2018 for selling MS & MSD products from M/s.Nayara Energy Ltd. An approval was also granted by the Petroleum and Explosive Safety Organisation (PESO) under the Ministry of Commerce & Industry subject to obtaining No Objection Certificate from the District Authority. Now the dispute is with respect to the issuance of No Objection Certificate. The fifth respondent herein has raised the objection that the proposed outlet must situate within 300 meters from the nearest Petrol Bunk, whereas, the petitioner's outlet is situated within 287 meters from the nearest Petrol Bunk and the same is in violation of IRC Guidelines. Therefore, the first respondent on 27.03.2019 vide its Proceedings in Na.Ka.No.4362/2019/E2 has refused to issue the No Objection Certificate.

¶12

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would state that 10% deviation is permissible under the guidelines of IRC. Hence, once again the petitioner has requested the first respondent to refer the matter to the fifth respondent to get his opinion. As almost all the works have been completed and the other departments have already issued NOC, the petitioner has been waiting for NOC to be issued by the first respondent. The petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the Minutes of Meeting of Committee on Minor Deviation for Retail outlet and private property along National Highways held on 04.10.2016, wherein it has been decided as follows:

¶13

“The Committee agreed that the cases in which deviation in individual parameter is upto 10% may be treated as reasonable and minor; such proposals may be allowed relaxation”.

¶14

In the case of the petitioner also there is a possibility of such relaxation being given, which is evident from the communication from the fifth respondent to the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.1924/2019/E.V.A, dated 30.12.2019, wherein it has been stated as follows:

¶15

“jw;bghGJ tpz;zg;gjhuh; ghh;it 3?y; fhQqk; fojj;jpy; MORTH (Planning Zone) fkpl;oahdJ rpy neh;t[fspy; nkw;go ,ilbtspahdJ 10% mst[ chpa fhuzj;jpd; mog;gilapy; Fiwa tha;g;g[s;sjhf bjhptpj;J MORTH (Planning Zone) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ fkpl;oapd; Tl;Lf;Tl;lk; kw;Wk; njrpa beL";rhiy

¶16

Mizaj;jpd; eltof;ifapy; bjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ vdt[k;. mjd; mog;gilapy; jilapd;ik rhd;W tH';f nfhhpa[s;shh;/ ,U bgl;nuhy; tpw;gid epiya';fSf;F ,ilg;gl;l bjhiytpw;fhd 10% jsh;thdJ khtl;l eph;thfj;jpd; K:yk; tH';fg;gLk; bgl;nuhy; tpw;gid epiya';fSf;fhd mDkjpahdJ. khtl;l eph;thfj;jpd; K:yk; nkw;bfhs;sg;gLk; Tl;l eltof;iffspd; ghpe;Jiuapd; K:yk; nkw;bfhs;syhk; vd;gij bjhptpj;Jf;bfhs;fpnwd;/”

¶17

Though already the Highways Department has recommended to consider the 10% relaxation in its next meeting, the case of the petitioner is kept pending till today. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the first respondent to issue the No Objection Certificate. The fifth respondent, who has already been informed about the 10% relaxation that can be granted to the petitioner is directed to take necessary steps to convene the meeting for granting the relaxation as required by the petitioner on merits. As the petitioner has invested his hard earned money, he cannot be kept waiting endlessly without the No Objection Certificate being issued for the purpose of commencing his business. Therefore, the first respondent is directed to consider the case of granting 10% relaxation to the petitioner based on the recommendation made by the fifth respondent on 30.12.2019. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18

With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar rsi

¶19

¶20

1.The District Revenue Officer, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.

¶21

2.The Commissioner of Police, Tiruppur City, Tiruppur.

¶22

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruppur.

¶23

4.The District Fire and Rescue Officer, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Tiruppur.

¶24

5.The Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Tiruppur.

¶25

+1cc to Mr.K.Govi Ganesan, Advocate, S.R.No. 40564

¶26

W.P.No.15689 of 2020

¶27

SR II(CO) GN(06/01/2021)

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

B.Mahesh Kumar v. The District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Mahesh Kumar v. The District Revenue 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

Dharmalingam Sridhar, Vs Union of India

Kothandaraman Prem Kumar Vs The Union of India

Vinod Balagopal Cola Vs Union of India

K.P.Velumani Vs Joint Director/Assistant Director

RamanathSriram Vs The Union of India

N.Maragathavalli Vidhya Vs The Registrar of Birth and Death