Kerala High Court
Aboo vs Union Of Inida on 21 November, 2023
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 30TH KARTHIKA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 36840 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:
1 ABOO
AGED 65 YEARS
PALLIYAL HOUSE, THARUVANA, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD,
PIN - 670645
2 EBRAHIM K.M
AGED 55 YEARS
KADAVATHMEETHAL, ELLUMANDAM, MANANTHAVADY,
WAYANAD, PIN - 670645
3 JAYANANDAN V.S.
AGED 52 YEARS
VENGOOR HOUSE, KRISHNAGIRI, MEENANGADI,
WAYANAD, PIN - 673122
BY ADVS.
AUGUSTINE JOSEPH
TONY AUGUSTINE
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INIDA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, SHASTRI BHAVAN,
NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR
CIVIL STATION, KALPETTA, WAYANAD, PIN - 673121
4 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PWD ROADS DIVISION, KALPETTA, WAYANAD, PIN - 673121
5 KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
REPRESENTED BY THE MEMBER SECRETARY, HEAD OFFICE,
PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
6 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED
CHIEF DIVISIONAL MANAGER, KOZHIKODE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
PMK TOWERS, WAYANAD ROAD, CIVIL STATION P.O, KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673020
7 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY THE SENIOR MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE,
CHUNGAM, WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673305
WP(C) NO. 36840 OF 2023 2
8 BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY THE TERRITORY CO-ORDINATOR,
TERRITORY OFFICE, YMCA CROSS ROAD, KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673001
9 CHENNAI PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED
FORMERLY KNOWN AS MADRASS REFINERIES LTD,
REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, MANALI,
CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU, PIN - 600068
10 THE NAYARA ENERGY LIMITED
TERRITORY MANAGER, NOEL FOCUS, SEAPORT AIRPORT ROAD,
CHITTETHU KARA, CSEZ P.O, KOCHI, PIN - 682037
BY ADVS.
SUVIN R MENON
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)
E.K.NANDAKUMAR
T. NAVEEN - SC
RAMOLA NAYANPALLY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 36840 OF 2023 3
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are stated to be Authorized Retail Petroleum Dealers of respondents 4 and 5 in Wayanad District and they assert that any further addition to the number of such outlets in the said District would be deleterious, not merely to their business, but also to the ecology. They thus pray that said respondents be directed not to grant any further permissions to open 'additional petroleum outlets' in Wayanad District.
2. Sri.Augustine Joseph - learned counsel for the petitioners, vehemently argued that, if the respondent petroleum companies are allowed to open and operate Fuel Dispensing Outlets in Wayanad District indiscriminately and without considering the requirements in the area, it would sound death knell for his clients' business, which they have established incurring heavy expenditure. As an adscititious argument, he submitted that it is also his clients' plea that the burgeoning number of outlets in such manner would create ecological imbalance in the area.
3. Sri.E.K.Nandakumar - learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Smt.Ramola Nayanpally - learned counsel appearing for respondents 6 to 8, submitted that the afore arguments of the petitioners are WP(C) NO. 36840 OF 2023 4 wholly untenable and that a writ petition of this nature is not maintainable against his clients. He argued that, as long as issuance of permissions for petroleum outlets is not controlled by any Statute or Regulation, the petitioners could not have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to virtually stiffle competition and to create monopoly. He submitted that such tendencies are deleterious; and therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.
4. Sri.T.Naveen - learned Standing Counsel for the 5 th respondent - Kerala State Pollution Control Board, submitted that his client's role emerges only when applications are preferred by persons intending to operate and for opening outlets. He submitted that, therefore, his client has no comment to make on this issue.
5. When I evaluate and consider the afore submissions, I find force in the afore submissions of Sri.E.K.Nandakumar - learned Senior Counsel because, even if this Court is to hold that any of the party respondents come within the fold of "State", as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the fact remains that they are engaged in commercial transactions, which are, admittedly, not controlled or regulated in any manner under the applicable Statutes or Regulations.
6. That apart, when the petitioners - who are also fuel pump WP(C) NO. 36840 OF 2023 5 dispensing operators - seek that no further operators be allowed, obviously, this is not a matter that this Court can consider under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially in the absence of any statutory provisions that cover the field. It is without doubt that petitioners must invoke other remedies, if any available to them, particularly when this Court cannot assess their claims, while exercising writ jurisdiction, they being essentially in the factual realm.
In the afore circumstances, leaving open all other liberties of the petitioners in terms of law, this writ petition is closed.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/22.11 WP(C) NO. 36840 OF 2023 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 36840/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER PUBLICATION OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 28.6.2023.
Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER PUBLICATION OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 28.6.2023.
Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER PUBLICATION ON 28.6.2023 BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED NIL OF THE 10TH RESPONDENT INVITING APPLICATIONS IN WAYANAD DISTRICT.
Exhibit-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 8.8.2023 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.