Dismissed

Muhammed Hussein v. the Joint Chief Controller

Madras HC1 Apr 2024WP/8506/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus to investigate allegedly wrongful issuance of provisional site approvals and explosives licences for a petroleum retail outlet in Thiruvarur. The court dismissed the writ petition because the licence applicant was not impleaded, leaving the petitioner free to raise objections before the DRO on the pending NOC application.

What the court decided

AI extract

Muhammed Hussein Vs the Joint Chief Controller — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

WP.No.8506/2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 01.04.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

WP.No.8506/2024

Muhammed Hussein

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Joint Chief Controller of Explosives Petroleum and Explosive Safety Organization [PESO], A & D-Wing Block 1-8, 2^nd floor Shastri Bhavan, 26, Haddows Road Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 006.

¶13

2.M/s.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd India Petroleum House 17, Jamshedji Tata Road Mumbai, Maharashtra, Mumbai 400 020.

¶14

3.M/s.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd rep.by the General Manager [O], South Zone Retail, Thalamuthu Natarajan Building, 4^th Floor No.3045, Gandhi Irwin Road, Chennai 600 008.

¶15

4.The District Revenue Office Office of DRO, Collectorate Campus Thiruvarur Colletor, Thiruvarur.

¶16

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

WP.No.8506/2024

¶19

5.The Superintending Engineer [H] Construction and Maintenance No.888, TVS Tollgate, Subramaniapuram Trichy 620 020.

¶20

6.The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, No.25, Developed Plots, Thuvakudy Trichy 620 015.

¶21

7.The Central Pollution Control Board Parvesh Bhawan, East Arjun Nagar Delhi 110 032.

¶22

8.N.Swaminathan ... Respondents

¶23

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of mandamus directing the respondents herein to consider the representation of the petitioner and directing the respondent to investigate and take appropriate actions, in accordance with the law and against the wrongful and negligent issuance of provisional site approvals and final explosives licenses to the Petroleum Retail Outlet in Thiruvarur District, Manakkal Village, survey Nos.143/4, 143/5, 143/5C, 143/6, 145/3 and 145/4.

¶24

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

WP.No.8506/2024

¶27

For Petitioner	: Mr.M.Kabilesh
For R1	: Mr.J.Madangopal Rao
	Senior Panel Counsel
For R3	: Mrs.Mohd Fayaz Ali
For R4	: Mr.G.Nanmaran, Spl.GP
For R6	: Mrs.Shanmugavalli Sekar
	Standing counsel
For R7	: Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan
	Standing counsel
For R8	: Mr.P.Mohanraj

¶28

ORDER

¶29

[Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.,]

¶30

(1)The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for

¶31

issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents herein to consider the representation of the petitioner and also to direct the respondents to investigate and take appropriate actions, in accordance with the law and against the wrongful and negligent issuance of provisional site approvals and final explosives licenses to the Petroleum Retail Outlet in Thiruvarur District, Manakkal Village, survey Nos.143/4, 143/5, 143/5C, 143/6, 145/3 and 145/4.

¶32

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

WP.No.8506/2024

¶35

(2)Mr.J.Madangopal Rao, learned Senior Panel Counsel accepts notice on behalf of the 1^st respondent ; Mr.Mohd Fayaz Ali, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the 3^rd respondent ; Mr.G.Nanmaran, learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the 4^th respondent ; Mrs.Shanmugavalli Sekar, learned Standing counsel accepts notice on behalf of the 6^th respondent ; Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan, learned Standing counsel accepts notice on behalf of the 7^th respondent and Mr.P.Mohanraj, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the 8^th respondent.

¶36

(3)It appears that the petitioner has raised certain objections citing regulations, for grant of license for establishment of a retail outlet in the land of 8^th respondent in Manakkal Village in S.Nos.143/4, 143/5, 143/5C, 143/6, 145/3 and 145/4. The petitioner though submitted a representation, it appears that grant of license is at the preliminary stage and the application submitted by the lessee of 8^th respondent before the DRO/4^th respondent for issuance of 'No Objection Certificate' is under consideration.

¶37

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

WP.No.8506/2024

¶40

(4)Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should approach the 4^th respondent / DRO, who is the competent authority to issue NOC to the licensee for running the retail outlet.

¶41

(5)Further, it is seen that the petitioner has not impleaded the person who has applied for license. Though the 8^th respondent has been impleaded, the learned counsel for the 8^th respondent submits that the 8^th respondent is only the owner of the property.

¶42

(6)Therefore, this Court cannot entertain the writ petition in the absence of the person who is likely to be affected by granting any relief or order in this writ petition.

¶43

(7)The learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent also submitted that the 3^rd party who intends to establish the retail outlet, has only applied for NOC and his application for NOC is pending.

¶44

(8)The 4^th respondent shall consider the objections raised by the petitioner before considering the application submitted by the proposed licensee seeking NOC and pass appropriate orders. It is open to the petitioner to challenge if any adverse order is passed by the 4^th respondent on the application submitted by the lessee of 8^th respondent herein.

¶45

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

WP.No.8506/2024

¶48

(9)Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed on the ground that the

¶49

petitioner has not impleaded the proper and necessary party to the lis. However, it is open to the petitioner to raise his objections before the 4^th

¶50

respondent who is the competent authority to grant NOC. No costs.

¶51

[S.S.S.R., J.] [N.S., J.] 01.04.2024

¶52

AP Internet : Yes

¶53

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶55

WP.No.8506/2024

¶56

¶57

1.The Joint Chief Controller of Explosives Petroleum and Explosive Safety Organization [PESO], A & D-Wing Block 1-8, 2^nd floor Shastri Bhavan, 26, Haddows Road Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 006.

¶58

2.M/s.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd India Petroleum House 17, Jamshedji Tata Road Mumbai, Maharashtra, Mumbai 400 020.

¶59

3.M/s.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd rep.by the General Manager [O], South Zone Retail, Thalamuthu Natarajan Building, 4^th Floor No.3045, Gandhi Irwin Road, Chennai 600 008.

¶60

4.The District Revenue Office Office of DRO, Collectorate Campus Thiruvarur Colletor, Thiruvarur.

¶61

5.The Superintending Engineer [H] Construction and Maintenance No.888, TVS Tollgate, Subramaniapuram Trichy 620 020.

¶62

6.The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, No.25, Developed Plots, Thuvakudy Trichy 620 015.

¶63

7.The Central Pollution Control Board Parvesh Bhawan, East Arjun Nagar Delhi 110 032.

¶64

¶65

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶66

WP.No.8506/2024

¶67

S.S. SUNDAR, J., and N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.,

WP.No.8506/2024

01.04.2024

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Muhammed Hussein v. the Joint Chief Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Muhammed Hussein v. the Joint Chief Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Rajasekaran Vs the Registrar

P.Rajendran Vs The State Level Scruitiny Committee III

D.Gopi Vs The Tamil Nadu State Level

M/S Spritle Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Chennai Metropolitan Development

Catholic Fraternity Awakening Society Vs Amala Merry Church

Dr.M.S.Thirumurthi Vs Secretary to Government