Kerala High Court
Faseela vs The Chief Town Planner on 23 August, 2011
Author: K.Surendra Mohan
Bench: K.Surendra Mohan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014/27TH POUSHA, 1935
WP(C).No. 856 of 2014 (F)
--------------------------
PETITIONER:
------------------
FASEELA, AGED 24 YEARS,
D/O.MOIDU.K.P., KAMMILIPARAMBIL HOUSE, TIRUR TALUK
TALAKADATHUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD
SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR
SRI.KANDAMPULLY RAHUL
SRI.MITHUN BABY JOHN
SRI.J.RAMKUMAR
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TOWN TOWN PLANNER
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. ATHAVANAD GRMA PANCHAYATH, KARIPOL P.O.,
MALAPPURAM 676 552, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
3. THE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.,
MANGALORE LPG REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR
"DEO GRATIAS BUILDING, URWA - CHILLIMBI
MANGALORE - 675 006
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER.
R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI G.GOPAKUMAR
R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER
R2 BY ADV. SRI.ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN
R3 BY SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-01-2014,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 856 of 2014 (F)
--------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DATED 23/8/2011 EXECUTED
BETWEEN HAMZAHAJI AND THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF INTENT DATED 20/3/2013 ISSUED BY
THE PETROLEUM CORPORATION TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 24/4/2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH, EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF
APPLICATION.
EXT.P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE NOC DATED 13/5/2013 ISSUED BY THE
PANCHAYATH.
EXT.P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OBTAINED BY
THE PETITIONER UNDER KVATACT.
EXT.P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION UNDER CST
ACT
EXT.P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 31/8/2013 ISSUED BY THE
ATHAVANAD PANCHAYATH FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER
FOR NUMBERING THE BUILDING.
EXT.P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLOSIVE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE JOINT
CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, CHENNAI, ALONG WITH THE PLAN
APPROVED BY HIM.
EXT.P9: A TRUE COPY OF THE NOC DATED 27/9/2013 ISSUED BY THE
DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES, PALAKKAD.
EXT.P10: A TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE THE SAME.
EXT.P11: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/12/2013 OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT APPROVING THE PLAN AND LAYOUT.
EXT.P12: A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE APPROVAL
IS GRANTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL
TRUE COPY
P.S.TO JUDGE
dsn
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.856 Of 2014
--------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF JANUARY, 2014
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging Condition No.9 in Exhibit P11. As per Exhibit P11, the Chief Town Planner, the 1st respondent herein has granted permission to construct an LPG (Liquified Petroleum Gas) godown in Re-survey No.23/1 of Athavanad Village within the limits of the 2nd respondent-Grama Panchayat. According to the petitioner, she has obtained all the necessary permissions from the various statutory authorities. As per condition No.8, it has been stipulated that she should maintain a 10 Metre wide open yard around the proposed godown. The petitioner has provided the said open space also. It is in addition to the conditions stipulated in Exhibit P11 that a further condition has been imposed that she should obtain No Objection Certificates from the neighbouring property owners. It is contended that, no statutory provision or rule mandates such a No Objection Certificate to be obtained.
2. Advocate Sri K.P.Sudhir appears for the 2nd WPC.No.856/14 -2- respondent-Panchayat. Advocate Sri Gopikrishnan Nambiar appears for the 3rd respondent. The Government Pleader appears for the 1st respondent.
3. According to the learned Government Pleader, condition No.9 in Exhibit P11 has been insisted upon, only considering the safety of the persons residing in the locality. To a pointed question as to whether any statutory provision or rule requires such a No Objection Certificate to be obtained, the answer is that there is no such statutory provision. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has complied with the requirements of all statutory provisions. The above being the position, I do not find any justification for insisting that the petitioner should obtain No Objection Certificates from the neighbouring property owners.
In view of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed. Condition No.9 in Exhibit P11 is set aside. The Panchayat shall initiate further action in the matter expeditiously.
Sd/-(K.SURENDRA MOHAN) JUDGE.
dsn