Kerala High Court
Robin Jose Olikara vs The District Magistrate on 30 May, 2016
Author: P.B. Suresh Kumar
Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2017/2ND ASHADHA, 1939
WP(C).No. 20910 of 2017 (K)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
ROBIN JOSE OLIKARA,
AGED 33 YEARS, S/O JOSE JOSEPH OKIKARA,
RESIDING AT OLIKARA(H), PERUMPANACHY P.O.,
MADAPPALLY VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT PIN-686536.
BY ADVS. JOHNSON GOMEZ
S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA)
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOTTAYAM,
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686001.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PWD ROADS DIVISION, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686001.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SANTHOSH PETER.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 23-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
rvs.
WP(C).No. 20910 of 2017 (K)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE LETTER OF
APPOINTMENT DATED 30.05.2016, ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.EOL/KL-123 DATED
04.06.2016 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.H3/30426/2016 DATED
16.06.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.D1-49584/2016/K DATED
11.08.2016 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF TO
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B1-3205/2016 DATED
24/06/2016 ISSUED BY THE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FIRE
& RESCUE SERVIES, KOTTAYAM TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A4-4815/16 DATED
20.09.2016 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, MADAPPALLY
PANCHAYATH TO THE 1ST RESPONDNET.
EXHIBIT P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.E2-5657/17 DATED
19.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE THAHASILDAR,
CHANGANASSERI.
EXHIBIT P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT NO.PCB/KTM/ICE/
1148/2016 DATED 01.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
EXHIBIT P9: A TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER NO.A/P/SC/KL/
14/3482(P383977) DATED 18.07.2016 ISSUED BY THE
JOINT CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVE CHENNAI.
EXHIBIT P10: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.AB3(2)2195/2016-17
DATE 28/12/2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO
THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P11: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.H3/30426/2016 DATED
02.02.2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P12: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.RW/NH-33023/19/99-DO-
III DATED 25.09.2003 PUBLISHED BY THE MINISTRY OF
ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS
EXHIBIT P13: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.10.2015 IN
WPC NO.30818/2015
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :
-----------------------
NIL.
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE
rvs.
P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.20910 of 2017
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2017
JUDGMENT
Ext.P2 is an application preferred by the petitioner under the Petroleum Rules for No Objection Certificate to establish a petroleum retail outlet. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the inaction on the part of the first respondent in taking a decision on Ext.P2 application. It is pointed by the petitioner that orders have not been passed since the second respondent has not specifically recommended for grant of No Objection Certificate. According to the petitioner, the request of the petitioner has to be considered by the first respondent in the light of Ext.P12 circular issued by the Central Government, notwithstanding the stand taken by other authorities. The petitioner, therefore, W.P.(C) No.20910 of 2017 -2- seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this writ petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.
3. It is seen that since the second respondent has not recommended for grant of NOC sought by the petitioner, the first respondent sought a clarification from the second respondent as to whether the second respondent intends to recommend for grant of NOC. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to take a decision on Ext.P2 application having regard to the views expressed by the second respondent in Ext.P10 communication and in accordance with Ext.P12 circular. This shall be done within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
P.B. SURESH KUMAR JUDGE bpr