Remanded

S.Chenniappan v. District Collector

Madras HC4 Oct 2021WP/6682/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a No Objection Certificate issued for a proposed petroleum outlet near a temple. The Court held that the impugned order failed to address objections regarding proximity and safety. The order was set aside and the matter remanded for a fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 26.12.2018 set aside; matter remanded to third respondent to re-do the process after hearing petitioners within six weeks.

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the third respondent dated 26.12.2018 made in R.Dis.No.4197/2017/C2 and to quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents 5 to 8 from carrying on any activities for establishing a petroleum bunk at S.No.345/A2, Keeranur Village, Kangeyam Taluk, Tirupur District.

The petitioners seek for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order dated 26.12.2018 passed by the third respondent, quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents 5 to 8 from carrying on any activities for establishing a petroleum bunk at S.No.345/A2, Keeranur Village, Kangeyam Taluk, Tirupur District.

2. The petitioners claim themselves to be the administrative committee members of Arulmighu Selvanayagiamman Temple situated in Keeranur Village, Kangeyam Taluk, Tirupur District. According to the petitioners, the seventh respondent owns a piece of land in Survey No. 345/A2, adjoining the said temple. It is further stated that the eighth respondent had taken out the said land on lease and obtained a dealership licence from the respondents 5 and 6 for running a petroleum outlet. The petitioners apprehend that the land, where the proposed petroleum bunk is to be installed by the eighth respondent, would be vulnerable for the conduct of rituals and festivals in the temple during which fire pots will be carried out by the devotees, besides cooking pongal and bursting of crackers. The petitioners therefore submitted a representation on 10.01.2017 to the fourth respondent followed by another representation dated 10.05.2017 to the third respondent specifically claiming that No Objection, if sought for by the eighth respondent, need not be given without hearing them. In response to the representation dated 10.01.2017, the fourth respondent sent a letter dated 15.05.2017 stating that the competent authority to either grant No Objection Certificate or refrain from issuing such certificate is vested with the third respondent and advised the petitioners to approach the first respondent or the third respondent for appropriate relief. While so, on 30.06.2017, the second respondent called upon the petitioners to attend an enquiry on 03.07.2017 with respect to the No Objection Certificate sought for by the eighth respondent. The petitioners also participated in the enquiry and raised their objection. Subsequently, the third respondent issued a notice dated 06.09.2017 calling upon the petitioners to

attend an enquiry on 18.09.2017, which the petitioners attend and reiterated their objections. However, by overlooking the objections raised by the petitioners, the third respondent issued No Objection Certificate to the eighth respondent on 26.12.2018 to erect a petroleum outlet in the disputed land. Therefore, challenging the No Objection Certificate issued by the third respondent on 26.12.2018, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioners.

3. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the third respondent ignored the objections raised by the petitioners while granting No Objection to the eighth respondent. Having regard to the close proximity of distance between the proposed land and the temple, the third respondent ought not to have issued No Objection Certificate to the eighth respondent to erect a petrol bunk. The third respondent also did not consider the fact that the land where the proposed petrol bunk is sought to be erected is classified in the revenue records as agricultural land, while so, such land cannot be permitted to be exploited for commercial purpose. The installation of petrol bunk adjacent to the temple would result in causing irreparable inconvenience to the devotees in carrying out their rituals and customs, which was not taken note of by the third respondent. Further, the third respondent, while passing the order dated 26.12.2018 did not refer to the objections raised by the petitioners. In any event, the land in question is not suitable for running a petrol bunk and therefore, he prayed for setting aside the order passed by the third respondent.

4. Opposing the relief sought for in the writ petition, the learned counsel for the fifth and sixth respondents, by placing reliance on the counter affidavit of the fifth and sixth respondents, would contend inter alia that Indian Oil Corporation has issued a notification dated 16.10.2014 for selection of petroleum retail outlet dealership. In response, the 8th respondent applied for petroleum retail outlet dealership and also provided a land in Survey No.345/A2 in Keeranur Village, Kangeyam Taluk, Tirupur District for the establishment of the petroleum bunk, which was leased to her by the seventh respondent. After following the tender process, the eighth respondent was selected as the retail outlet dealer under a draw of lot and a letter of intent and acceptance was issued to the eighth respondent on 17.02.2017. Thereafter, the fifth respondent sent a letter dated 03.03.2017 to the first respondent/District Collector, Tirupur for issuance of No- Objection Certificate. On receipt of the same, the third respondent called for No-Objection from the District Fire Department, The District Municipality and the Highways Department. The Keeranur Municipality by a letter dated

24.03.2017 addressed to the third respondent expressed satisfaction over the establishment of a petroleum retail outlet as it would meet the growing demands for fuel in the locality. The Keeranur Municipality also expressed its No Objection for establishment of petroleum outlet. Further, the District Fire Department as well as Highways Department have issued their No Objections on 23.03.2017 and 03.04.2017. After having obtained such No Objections from the various departments, the first respondent issued the statutory No Objection Certificate under Rule 144 of The Petroleum Rules, 2002 on 26.12.2018. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5, all the Rules have been meticulously followed in the matter of conferring permission to the eighth respondent to establish a Petroleum outlet and hence, the learned counsel for the fifth and sixth respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.

5. When this writ petition was listed for hearing on 25.08.2021, this Court, after hearing the counsel for both sides, was of the view that appointment of an advocate commissioner is desirable to note down the distance between the proposed petroleum outlet and the existence of the Arulmighu Selvanayagiamman Temple. Accordingly, Mr. K. Prabhakaran, Advocate was appointed as advocate commissioner to ascertain the location of the land where the proposed petrol bunk is to be set up, the distance between the subject temple etc., Accordingly, the Advocate Commissioner appointed by this Court has inspected the disputed site and submitted his report on 07.09.2021. The relevant portion of the report of the Advocate Commissioner can profitably be extracted hereunder:-

"4. I respectfully submit that the distance between the south-east corner of the temple and the petroleum bunk where it is proposed to be constructed is 118 feet. Right opposite to the land of the proposed petrol bunk, there is existence of Sri Adheeswarar Temple called as Sivan temple and fenced by compound wall. The road heading from four roads to Urathupalayam Dam lies in between the proposed petrol bunk land and Sri Adheeswarar temple. The said Sri Adheeswarar temple and proposed petrol bunk is separated by the Highways road which is measuring 17 meters. In the northern side of Sri Adheeswarar temple is a vacant land. Next to the vacant land, there is a temple namely, the Karupparayan temple.

5. I respectfully submit that the temple has also constructed a building in its own land which is situated on the eastern side of the proposed petroleum bunk. The said building comprised of two blocks. The first block is used for making tonsure, for keeping pooja equipment and there is

an IDBI ATM. The second building is used by the devotees for making pongal during festival seasons and there is centre viz., Thiru Selvanagiamman Thirumana Thagavel Mayyam. During the time of inspection, the petitioner also produced the property tax for the temple building. The distance between the building owned by the temple and the proposed petroleum bunk is 13 feet in which 7 feet belongs to the temple.

6. According to the petitioner, the pooja ceremony of Thiru Selvanayagiamman temple is held three times a day (i.e., Morning, afternoon and Evening). Special poojas were also made during Full moon and new moon and special muhurtham. The grand festival of the said temple is conducted by three consecutive days once in every year during the month of Maasi (February to March) at Mirugaseerisham star. It is also said that during the festival, the custom is being practiced grandly by the devotees of the temple like Theertha Kudam, Paal Kudam, carrying fire pots and Vedivazhipadu taking from four roads to the temple. The renovation of the temple has completed in the year of 2017 and the Kumbabishegam was held in the year 2018. At the time of festival, it is claimed that there were lakhs of people, including the devotees participated in the festival.

7. I respectfully submit that as per the plan submitted by the respondent 5 to 8, the total extent of the petroleum bunk is 400 square meters (i.e.- North-South-20 feet & East-West-20 feet) and thus total extent of 400 square meters. In which the 20 meters on the western side includes the 4.3 meter compound wall of the house building. On the south-east in the land of proposed petrol bunk, there is a meat shop in which it includes the 20 meters of the land of proposed petrol bunk. Adjacent to meat shop, there is a tiled house right next to the meat shop on the south side. The respondent submitted the document at the time of inspection which is already filed in their typed set of papers. I have also filed a detailed sketch with measurement and the same is filed along with the report."

6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials placed on record. Admittedly, on coming to know about the proposal of the eighth respondent to establish a petroleum retail outlet, the petitioners have raised objections. The grievance of the petitioners is that the proposed land,

where the petroleum retail outlet is to be established, is in closer proximity to the temple and that it will be vulnerable for the petitioners to commemorate the festivals and rituals, which includes bursting of fire crackers and carrying of fire pots. It is evident from the averments of the petitioners that they have participated in the enquiry conducted by the second respondent on 03.07.2017 as also the third respondent on 18.09.2017, during which they reiterated their objections. However, while passing the order dated 26.12.2018, which is impugned in this writ petition, the third respondent has not even adverted to the objections raised by the petitioners and simply issued the No Objection Certificate, as sought for by the eighth respondent. Therefore, the order dated 26.12.2018 passed by the third respondent, without referring to the objections raised by the petitioners, deserve to be set aside.

7. Accordingly, the order dated 26.12.2018 passed by the third respondent is set aside and the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. The matter is remanded back to the third respondent with a direction to re-do the entire process of issuing No Objection Certificate to the eighth respondent afresh, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as the eighth respondent, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

4. District Fire Officer District Fire Department Tirupur 5. M/s. Indian Oil Corporation 139, Nungambakkam High Road Chennai - 600 034 6. M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Shop No.8/1079, Indian Oil Bhavan Avinashi Road, P.N. Palayam Coimbatore - 641 018 +1CC to M/s.V.Balamurugane, Advocate, SR.No. 52133 +1CC to The Government Pleader, SR.No. 51994

S.Chenniappan v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Chenniappan v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Ponnusamy Vs District collector

Sri Ganesh Lakshmi Construction India Vs The Chief Engineer

C.Rajaboopathy Vs The Authorisation committee

K.Sethumadhavan Vs The Principal Secretary to Govt

K.Rajamanickam Vs The District Collector

B.Manuel Raj Vs the Tahsildar