Kerala High Court
G.Alexander vs Union Of India
Author: K. M. Joseph
Bench: K.M.Joseph, A.Hariprasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935
WA.No. 1688 of 2013 IN WP(C).5768/2011
-------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 5768/2011 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
----------------------
G.ALEXANDER, AGED 64 YEARS,
ELAVUKKATTU EX VILLA, KADAMBANAD SOUTH MURI
KADAMBANAD VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN 691 553
BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA
SRI.JOSEPH RONY JOSE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
---------------------------
1. UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AFFAIRS
NEW DELHI 110002
2. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SUPPLIES
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001
3. THE ENVIORNMENTAL ENGINEER,
KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
DISTRICT OFFICE, MAKKAM KUNNU,
PATHANAMTHITTA 689 645
4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645
5. KADAMBANAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KADAMBANAD P.O
ADOOR 691 553
6. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED,
REGIONAL OFFICE,ERNAKULAM,COCHIN 682 018
7. RAJAN PILLAI,
S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, ANU NIVAS, IVERKALA WEST
KUNNATHUR, ADOOR 692 553
ADDL. 8.REV. FR. RAJAN MATHEW, VICAR & CO-TRUSTEE,
ST. THOMAS ORTHODOX CATHETRAL,
KADAMPANAD SOUTH P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
ADDL. 9. M.V.MATHEW, TRUSTEE,
ST.THOMAS ORTHODOX CATHEDRAL,
KADAMPANAD SOUTH P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
ADDL. R8 AND R9 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 27-11-13
IN I.A.NO.1015/13 IN W.A.NO.1688/13.
R1 BY SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA
R2 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI SHYAMKUMAR
R3 BY SRI.M.R.ARUNKUMAR, SC, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
R6 BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR,SC,HPCL
R5 BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)
R7 BY SRI.C.B.SREEKUMAR
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
3/12/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K. M. JOSEPH & A. HARIPRASAD, JJ.
=.=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=.=
W. A. No. 1688 of 2013
=.=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=.=
Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2013
JUDGMENT
K. M. JOSEPH, J.
Petitioner is the appellant. The writ petition was filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"i) to call for the records of this case leading to Ext.P7 and quash the same issuing a writ of certiorari;
ii) to issue a writ of prohibition restraining the 6th respondent from commissioning its retail outlet without obtaining license under Rule 6 of the Rules;
iii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 3, 4 and 5 to dispose of Exts.P8, P9 and P10 representations after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner within a time limit to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court and
iv) to issue such other and further relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of this case."
2. Challenge is to Ext.P7 by way of certiorari. Prohibition is sought for restraining the 6th respondent from commissioning its retail outlet without obtaining license under rule 6 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of WA1688/2013 2 License to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1996 (The learned counsel points out that it is actually under rule 144 of the Rules). Further direction is sought for a direction to dispose of Exts.P8 to P10 representations.
3. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition as follows:-
6. It is brought to the notice of this Court that necessary 'NOC' in terms of relevant provisions of the Petroleum Rules, is still to be issued by the 4th respondent, who is the competent authority. In the said circumstance, there will be a direction to the 4th respondent to consider the application sated as preferred for granting NOC for commencement of the retail outlet. This shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondents 5 to 7. The proceedings shall be finalised at the earliest, at any rate, within six weeks."
Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, WA1688/2013 3 learned Government Pleader and learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to establish before us that in the issuance of Ext.P7, the 6th respondent acted in an illegal manner and violated the statutory provisions. No ground exists as would enable us to interfere in judicial review proceedings. In such circumstances, though learned counsel for the appellant would point out that no purpose will be served by going before the District Collector, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge and grant relief as sought for by the appellant.
The appeal fails and it is dismissed.
K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
nkm