Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and K.C. Anil Kumar v State of Kerala and Others

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** **TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 1ST POUSHA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.10213 OF 2020(B)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** - **1 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., PB NO. 1601, ERNAKULAM NORTH P.O, ERNAKULAM-682 018, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER MR.SARABJIT SINGH.** - **2 K.C. ANIL KUMAR, MANAGING PARTNER, P.K. CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR AND CO., HP DEALERS, N.F. GATE, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM-682 301.** **BY ADVS. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM SRI.RAJA KANNAN SMT.NAYANPALLY RAMOLA SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030.** - **3 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030.** - ****4 LAKSHMI MARAR (DELETED), W/O.K.W.MURALEEDHARA MARAR, NEDIUM VEEDU, H. NO. 39/1276, KALATHIL PARAMBIL ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 016.** **(DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED 0307-2020 IN IA 1/2020.)** **WP(C)Nos.10213,10666 & 20574/2020 2** **5 N. KRISHNAN, S/O. K.W.MURALEEDHARA MARAR, NEDIUM VEEDU, H.NO.39/1276, KALATHIL PARAMBIL ROAD, ERNAKULAM- 682 016.** - **6 M.P. SAMPATH KUMAR, S/O. M.N.PRAKASH, POSITIVE SYSTEMS, 39/1568, MADAKKAPPILLY LANE, CHITTOOR ROAD, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM-682 016.** **7 INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, POLICE COMMISSIONERATE, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM-682035.** **8 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, HILL PALACE POLICE STATION, IRUMPANAM, THRIPPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM-682 301.** **ADDL.R9 THRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THRIPPUNITHURA P.O, ERNAKULAM-682 301.** **(IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 03-07-2020 IN IA 2/2020.)** **ADDL.R10 DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, PETROLEUM AND EXPLOSIVES SAFETY ORGANIZATION (PESO), KENDRIYA BHAVAN, BLOCK C-2, 3RD FLOOR, CGO COMPLEX, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682037.** **(ADDITIONAL R10 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 12/08/2020 IN WPC)** **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.G.RANJITA R5-6 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) R5-6 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN R9 BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN, SC, TRIPUNITHURA MUNCIPALITY R10 BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.12.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).10666/2020(G), WP(C).20574/2020(V), THE COURT ON 22.12.2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C)Nos.10213,10666 & 20574/2020 3** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** **TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 1ST POUSHA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.10666 OF 2020(G)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **K.C.ANILKUMAR, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.P. K.CHANDRASHEKHARAN NAIR, MANAGING PARTNER, P.K.CHANDRASHEKARAN NAIR AND CO., H. P. DEALERS, N. F. GATE, TRIPUNITHURA - 682 301.** **BY ADVS. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.R.GITHESH SRI.AJAY BEN JOSE SRI.MANJUNATH MENON SRI.SACHIN JACOB AMBAT SHRI.HARIKRISHNAN S.** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 THE TRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, TRIPUNITHURA, PIN - 682 301. 2 THE SECRETARY, THE TRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, TRIPUNITHURA, PIN - 682 301. 3 M/S HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., P. B. NO.1601, ERNAKULAM NORTH P. O., ERNAKULAM - 682 018, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER (RETAIL). 4 M. P. SAMPATH KUMAR, POSITIVE SYSTEM, 39/1568, MADAKKAPILLY LANE, CHITTOOR ROAD, COCHIN - 682 016.** **WP(C)Nos.10213,10666 & 20574/2020 4** **5 THE VICAR, ST. JOSEPH CHURCH, NORTH FORT, TRIPUNITHURA, PIN - 682 301.** **R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN, SC, TRIPUNITHURA MUNCIPALITY R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI R3 BY ADV. SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN R3 BY ADV. SRI.KURYAN THOMAS R3 BY ADV. SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM R4 BY ADV. GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN** **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.G.RANJITA** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.12.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).10213/2020(B), WP(C).20574/2020(V), THE COURT ON 22.12.2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C)Nos.10213,10666 & 20574/2020 5** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** **TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 1ST POUSHA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.20574 OF 2020(V)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **N.KRISHNAN, S/O. K.W.MURALEEDHARA MARAR, LAKSHMI, H. NO. 39/1276, KALATHIL PARAMBIL ROAD, ERNAKULAM -682 016, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER M.P.SAMPATH KUMAR, S/O. M.N.PRAKASH, AGED 44 YEARS, MUKKUTTIVIL, VENGALLOOR P.O, THODUPUZHA-685 584.** **BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) SRI.ALEX.M.SCARIA SMT.SARITHA THOMAS** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM IN THE CAPACITY OF DISTRICT AUTHORITY UNDER THE PETROLEUM ACT, 1934, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD-682 030.** - **2 DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, PETROLEUM AND EXPLOSIVES SAFETY ORGANISATION, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, BLOCK -C2, THIRD FLOOR, CGO COMPLEX, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 037.** - **3 THE REGIONAL FIRE OFFICER, ERNAKULAM, FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES, KADAVANTHARA P.O, KOCHI-682 020.** - **4 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THRIPUNITHURA POLICE STATION, THRIPUNITHURA -682 301.** - **5 THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, ERNAKULAM, THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, MIG AND HIG COLONY, GANDHI NAGAR, KADAVANTHARA, ERNAKULAM-682 020.** **WP(C)Nos.10213,10666 & 20574/2020 6** **6 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED P.B.NO.1601, ERNAKULAM NORTH P.O, KOCHI-682 018. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER, MR. SARABJIT SINGH.** **7 K.C. ANILKUMAR, MANAGING PARTNER, P.K. CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR AND CO. H.P. DEALERS, NF GATE, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM-682 301.** **R2 BY SRI.JAGATH. N., CGC R6 BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR R6 BY ADV. SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI R6 BY ADV. SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN R6 BY ADV. SRI.KURYAN THOMAS R6 BY ADV. SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM R7 BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) R7 BY ADV. SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE R7 BY ADV. SRI.P.PRIJITH R7 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA R7 BY ADV. SRI.MANJUNATH MENON R7 BY ADV. SRI.AJAY BEN JOSE R7 BY ADV. SRI.R.GITHESH R7 BY ADV. SMT.HANI P.NAIR R7 BY ADV. SHRI.HARIKRISHNAN S. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT..R.RANJITHA, BY SRI.T.NAVEEN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.12.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).10213/2020(B), WP(C).10666/2020(G), THE COURT ON 22.12.2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **JUDGMENT** **[W.P.(C) Nos.** 10213/2020, 10666/2020 & 20574/2020] **Dated this the 22nd day of December 2020** These matters relate to running of a petroleum outlet by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “HPCL”) in Survey No.931/1 of Nadama Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District. 2. The aforenoted land originally belonged to late Lakshmi Marar. She died on 29.10.2010. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.20574/2020, N.Krishnan is the sole legal heir. The petroleum outlet was established in the year 1967, in accordance with the Petroleum Act, 1934 and Rules framed thereunder. 3. The agreement of lease was made between Lakshmi Marar and HPCL on 23.12.1994. This was in the nature of renewal of existing lease. It is **`W.P.(C) Nos.`** 10213/2020, 10666/2020 & 20574/2020 ## **-:8:-** mentioned in the lease deed itself that the demised premises was obtained from the predecessor-ininterest of Lakshmi Marar and lease deed was in the nature of renewal for increasing the rent. The lease was renewed for a period of 20 years with effect from 1.4.1992. There was no renewal of lease thereafter. However, in the lease deed itself it was agreed that the lease of the demised premises shall be renewed for a further term of 20 years from the expiration of the present term on conditions to be mutually agreed at that time. The dispute arising out of the contractual agreement is now pending as a civil dispute between the parties. 4. N.Krishnan approached the District Collector, Ernakulam, with a complaint dated 18.12.2019 stating that the petroleum outlet is run without any statutory clearance, licence etc. The **`W.P.(C) Nos.`** 10213/2020, 10666/2020 & 20574/2020 ## **-:9:-** District Collector after hearing the parties passed an order on 16.5.2020. Finding that the petroleum outlet is being run without any valid permission after the period of lease term, the District Collector ordered to close down the petroleum outlet. The petroleum outlet is being run by one K.C.Anilkumar as a dealer of HPCL. HPCL along with K.C.Anil Kumar approached this Court in W.P. (C).No.10213/2020 challenging this order. 5. K.C.Anil Kumar was running the outlet as a dealer. He had obtained D & O licence. His application for renewal was rejected for want of licence from Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation, Fire NOC, consent from Pollution Control Board etc. There has been a challenge at the instance of the All Kerala Federation of Petroleum Traders, against non-renewal of D & O licence for **`W.P.(C) Nos.`** 10213/2020, 10666/2020 & 20574/2020 ## **-:10:-** want of consent from the Pollution Control Board and other requirements as stated in the impugned order. This Court, in W.P.(C).No.6549/2018 filed by All Kerala Federation of Petroleum Traders, passed an interim direction to renew the D & O licence provisionally, without insisting consent and licence. That writ petition is pending. K.C.Anil Kumar filed W.P.(C) No.10666/2020 challenging rejection of renewal application for trade licence. 6. N.Krishnan filed W.P.(C) No. 20574/2020. He challenges Ext.P12 letter produced in the said writ petition. That is an order of the Controller of Explosives, wherein it is recorded that the HPCL is having a deemed licence to run the petroleum outlet. N.Krishan also had approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.15693/2020 seeking a direction against the licensing authority, Joint Chief Controller of ## **`W.P.(C) Nos.`** 10213/2020, 10666/2020 & 20574/2020 ## **-:11:-** Explosives to consider his complaint that the petroleum outlet run by the HPCL after the expiry of the lease period is illegal and the licence has to be revoked. That complaint was considered pursuant to the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 15663/2020, dated 14/8/2020, and an order was passed on 13.11.2020 pending these writ petitions. The licensing authority reiterated their view that HPCL is having deemed licence by virtue of Rule 148(5) of the Petroleum (Amendment) Rules, 2018. This order is also challenged by way of an amendment in W.P. (C).No.20574/2020. 7. After hearing the learned Senior Counsel, Shri George Poonthottam assisted by Shri Alex M.Scaria for the petitioner Shri N.Krishnan in W.P. (C).No.20574/2020, and learned Senior Counsel Shri.S.Sreekumar appearing for the petitioner-Shri ## **`W.P.(C) Nos.`** 10213/2020, 10666/2020 & 20574/2020 ## **-:12:-** K.C.Anil Kumar in W.P.(C).No.10666/2020 and learned Counsel Shri Poulose appearing for HPCL, this Court is of the view that all these cases can be disposed of by a common judgment. 8. The following points arise for consideration: Point No.1: Legality of the order of the District Collector, Ernakulam, directing to close down the petroloeum outlet. Point No.2: Legality of the order rejecting the renewal application for trade licence. Point No.3: Legality of the order passed by the licensing authority under the Petroleum Rules holding that HPCL hold deemed licence. Point No.1 : 9. The District Collector in his order had not adverted to any statutory power to pass the impugned ## **`W.P.(C) Nos.`** 10213/2020, 10666/2020 & 20574/2020 ## **-:13:-** order. The Petroleum Act was in the year 1934. Section 4 of the Petroleum Act conferred power on the Central Government to make rules for storing petroleum, granting licence etc. It appears that with much effort, Senior Counsel Shri George Poonthottam is able to procure the Petroleum Rules of the year 1937. These Rules were published in Calcutta Gazette of April 1937. Chapter VI of the Petroleum Rules, 1937 is related to issuance of licences. It lays down procedure for obtaining licence. It is stipulated that an applicant to a new licence may apply to the district authority to the effect that there is no objection to the proposed site. The arguments raised by learned Senior Counsel Shri George Poonthottam was that HPCL failed to produce any document to establish that they have obtained any such permission from the **`W.P.(C) Nos.`** 10213/2020, 10666/2020 & 20574/2020 ## **-:14:-** district authority. Under the Petroleum Rules, 2002 in terms of Rule 144, no objection certificate has to be obtained from the district authority. Therefore, it is argued by the learned Senior Counsel Shri George Poonthottam that similar certificate has to be obtained from the district authority as referable under Chapter VI of the Petroleum Rules 1937. It is to be noted that this is required for the purpose of establishing a petroleum outlet and not for running a pertroleum outlet. The petroleum outlet in question was established in the year 1967. At this distance of time it is not necessary to probe whether such permission was obtained from the district authority or not. Admittedly, with the consent of Lakshmi Marar and her predecessor-in- interest, the petroleum outlet was established in the land. The District Collector, **`W.P.(C) Nos.`** 10213/2020, 10666/2020 & 20574/2020 ## **-:15:-** therefore, was not expected to demand production of NOC. The purpose of such NOC is only to find out whether the site is objectionable or not. Having allowed the petroleum outlet to operate for more than 50 years, it cannot be said that the district authority still retains the power to find out whether the site is objectionable or not. It is pertinent to note that the original lease was with the predecessor-in-interest of HPCL, M/s.ESSO Standard Eastern INC. The petroleum outlet was run by the predecessor of HPCL. There is no dispute to the fact that the licence under the Petroleum Rules was also issued to the outlet. Then it has to be assumed that such permission was issued following the rules and regulations. Mere non-production of NOC from the district authority cannot confer power on the District Collector to act against the **`W.P.(C) Nos.`** 10213/2020, 10666/2020 & 20574/2020 ## **-:16:-** petroleum outlet. No other discernible power is vested with the District Collector to pass the order of closure. The District Collector is not the licensing authority. In such circumstances, I hold that the order passed by the District Collector is legally unsustainable. ## Point No.2 10. The Municipality rejected the application for the renewal of licence for want of consent from the Pollution Control Board and NOC from the Fire Department. The Municipality has no case that the dealer had no previous licence. The dealer was given licence in part. In the light of the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.(C).No 6549/2018, the Municipality could not have insisted for fire NOC and consent from the Pollution Control Board, etc. for renewal of licence. **`W.P.(C) Nos.`** 10213/2020, 10666/2020 & 20574/2020 ## **-:17:-** 11. It is stipulated under the Kerala Municipality (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 2011 that when an applicant for licence is other than the owner of the building, the applicant has to produce the consent from the owner of the building. This provision cannot be construed as a mandatory provision. It can only be treated as a directory provision. Under Section 492(3) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 it is stipulated that a consent is required by the applicant of the licence, if he is not the owner of the building. The Apex Court in **Sudhakaran v. Corporation of Trivandram [2016 (3) KLT 247 (SC)]** held that requirement of consent of landlord is applicable only when a person intends to obtain licence for the first time. In such circumstances there is no difficulty for the **`W.P.(C) Nos.`** 10213/2020, 10666/2020 & 20574/2020 ## **-:18:-** Municipality in renewing the licence as the petitioner has previous licence which will be subject to further orders in the pending W.P. (C).No.6549/2018. Point No.3: 12. This point is crucial for determination of this case. The point is whether HPCL is having a deemed licence under the Petroleum Rules, 2002. HPCL is having a licence. They submitted an application for renewal. The application for renewal was submitted for the period from 1/1/19 to 31/12/2023. No decision was taken on account of the civil dispute pending between the parties in regard to the lease. In the agreement executed with HPCL with late Lakshmi Marar, there was an arbitration clause. N.Krishnan filed a suit for recovery of possession of plaint schedule property on the ## **`W.P.(C) Nos.`** 10213/2020, 10666/2020 & 20574/2020 ## **-:19:-** strength of title inherited by him from Lakshmi Marar. In that suit, HPCL contended in regard to existence of the arbitration clause. Accepting the plea of HPCL, the suit in O.S.No.293/2013 was dismissed relegating parties to arbitration. This was challenged by N.Krishnan in O.P.(C).No.1500/2015 before this Court. Taking note of these circumstances, the licensing authority kept the decision regarding renewal, as pending. However, by referring to Rule 148(5), the licensing authority took the view that the licence will be deemed to be in force until such date the licensing authority renews the licence or until the communication of intimation that renewal of licence is refused. This order was passed initially on 26/5/2020. Thereafter, pursuant to the judgment of this Court in W.P. (C).No.15663/2020, the licensing authority heard **`W.P.(C) Nos.`** 10213/2020, 10666/2020 & 20574/2020 ## **-:20:-** ## N.Krishnan and officials of HPCL. An order was passed on 13/11/2020 as follows:- In the light of the above discussion it is find that HPCL is in possession of the premises and question regarding validity of lease deed via which HPCL came into possession of the same is pending before various courts. However, until HPCL is legally dispossessed by a competent court of law, “HPCL is not a trespasser” as contended by the power of attorney of the petitioner. HPCL also holds a valid NOC issued by the District Magistrate. Therefore, the request of the petitioner to withdraw the license granted cannot be entertained. The other request of the petitioner is not to renew the license by any further. The license is not renewed by this office. The application is kept pending since the question of validity of the lease is pending before Courts of law. As soon as a judgment is produced in the matter, this office will take appropriate steps to dispose off the application in accordance with the finding in the judgment. Till then however, the license granted to HPCL is deemed to be in force as per rule 148(5) of the Petroleum Rules 2002. The main reason given by the licensing authority was that HPCL cannot be treated as a trespasser and they are in possession based on the valid lease deed. Till competent court takes a decision on lease, the application cannot be considered and disposed of. Perhaps the issue in this case has to be considered **`W.P.(C) Nos.`** 10213/2020, 10666/2020 & 20574/2020 ## **-:21:-** in terms of the precedents and decisions cited at Bar. 13. Under Rule 152 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 a licence is liable to be suspended or cancelled if the licensee ceases to have any right to the site for storing petroleum {see Rule 152(1)(i)}. The rights referred under the rules must be understood as an interest protected under law. The licensing authority is therefore, bound to examine the right of the licensee. 14. Petroleum product is a hazardous substance as referred under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Petroleum is included in the hazardous substance as defined under Section 2(e) of the Environment (Protection) Act. Under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991, the statutory provisions cast a liability on the owner who has **`W.P.(C) Nos.`** 10213/2020, 10666/2020 & 20574/2020 ## **-:22:-** control over handling hazardous substance. The licensing under the Petroleum Rules have to be viewed very seriously. That is the reason why under Rule 152 it is stated that licence has to be cancelled, if licensee ceases to have any right to site for storing petroleum. The licensing authority is only to examine whether the applicant for licence is having _right in praesenti_ . It is not the look out of the licensing authority to examine the ongoing dispute between the parties. If anyone of the parties want to protect their right or interest, they have to obtain such right from the competent civil court or from such other forum. Licensing authority only need to consider whether the holder of licence is having an interest protected under law in the land or not. ## **`W.P.(C) Nos.`** 10213/2020, 10666/2020 & 20574/2020 ## **-:23:-** 15. The Apex Court, in fact, considered a similar issue in terms of the petroleum rules. In **C.Albert Morris v. K.Chandrasekaran and Others** [( **2006) 1 SCC 228]** , after referring to rule 153(1) of the Petroleum Rules, 1976, which is similar to Rule 152 of the Petroleum Rules 2002, the Apex Court held that right means a legal right to continue on the land. It is appropriate to refer the relevant ## portion of the judgment. In our opinion, any right which the dealer has over his site was the right which he had acquired in terms of the lease. When that lease expired and when the landlord declined to renew the same and also called upon the erstwhile tenant to surrender possession , the erstwhile lessee could no longer assert that he had any right to the site. His continued occupation of something which he had no right to occupy cannot be regarded as a source of a right to the land of which he himself was not in lawful possession. As observed by this Court in the case of M.C. Chockalingam & Ors. Vs. V.Manickavasagam & Ors. (supra), litigious possession cannot be regarded as lawful possession. As rightly pointed out by the Division Bench of the High Court the right referred to in this rule has necessarily to be regarded as right which is in accordance with law and the right to the site must be one which is capable of being regarded as lawful. We have already referred to Bhawanji Lakhamshi & Ors. Vs. Himatlal Jamnadas Devi & Ors.(supra) **`W.P.(C) Nos.`** 10213/2020, 10666/2020 & 20574/2020 ## **-:24:-** wherein this Court held that the act of holding over after the expiration of the term does not create a tenancy of any kind. A new tenancy is created only when the landlord assents to the continuance of the erstwhile tenant or the landlord agrees to accept rent for the continued possession of the land by the erstwhile tenant. The contention of Mr. L.N. Rao that the landlord's assent should be inferred from the conduct of the landlord who had filed the suit for ejectment, but did not pursue the same, has no force. This suit was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, liberty which the Court has granted. The possession of the site by the erstwhile lessee does not ripen into a lawful possession merely because the landlord did not proceed with the suit for ejectment at that time, but reserved the right to bring such a suit at a later point of time. That cannot amount to an assent on his part to the continued occupation of the landlord under cover of a right asserted by the erstwhile lessee. The words “right to the site” in Rule 153(1)(i)must, therefore, in our opinion, be given their full meaning and the effect that unless the person seeking a licence is in a possession to establish a right to the site, he would not be entitled to hold or have his licence renewed. We have already rejected the contention of Mr. L.N. Rao that the appellant-tenant is a statutory tenant for the reasons recorded earlier. The lease deed is very clear as to what was leased in. the lease was of vacant land. That is evident from the recitals in the plaint, legal notice, lease deed etc. It is, therefore, not in dispute that the lease of land is not covered by the statute, The Pondicherry Buildings(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969 in force extending protection to tenants. 50. We now come to the last contention of Mr.L.N.Rao that the first respondent is not entitled to maintain the writ petition as the proceedings initiated by him before the Collector for cancellation of the no-objection certificate are pending. The said submission cannot be **`W.P.(C) Nos.`** 10213/2020, 10666/2020 & 20574/2020 ## **-:25:-** accepted. While granting NOC, the Collector is not concerned about the land and its suitability as a place for storage of petroleum. Rule 144 which deals with the grant of NOC does not contemplate an enquiry into the ownership of the land nor does it require the Collector to enquire into the nature of the right claimed by the person who has applied for NOC. We,therefore, uphold the judgment and final order passed by the Divison Bench dated 7-10-2003 in Writ Appeals Nos.1149 and 2140 of 2002 for the reasons given by us in this judgment. I am of the view that the authority will have to address this issue in the light of **C.Albert Morris's** case (supra). It was clearly held by the Apex Court that when the lease expired and when the landlord declined to renew the same, the lessee could no longer assert that he had any right to the site. Though the counsel for HPCL tried to distinguish **C.Albert Morris's** case contending that the licensing authority need not go into the question of title, right and interest and it is for the civil court to decide, I cannot accept this argument for the simple reason that the licensing **`W.P.(C) Nos.`** 10213/2020, 10666/2020 & 20574/2020 ## **-:26:-** authority has to be satisfied with subsisting right of the holder of licence. In the absence of any lease or court order, the licensing authority has to decide the matter with available records. The licensing authority cannot postpone its decision merely citing the pendency of dispute before this Court or before any other court. The licensing authority cannot shirk its responsibility under statutory provisions. In such circumstances, I am of the view that by placing reliance on Rule 148(5), the licensing authority is attempting to evade from answering the real issue referable under Rule 152. Therefore, I hold that HPCL cannot claim the benefit of deemed licence. I declare so. Consequently, a direction is issued to the licensing authority, the second respondent in W.P.(C).No.20574/2020, to take a decision on renewal application after adverting to ## **`W.P.(C) Nos.`** 10213/2020, 10666/2020 & 20574/2020 ## **-:27:-** the law as above and hearing HPCL and N.Krishnan or his authorised representative. Till such a decision is taken, HPCL will have the benefit of Rule 148(5) of the Petroleum Rules. 16. In the result, the following directions are issued: i. W.P.(C).No.10213/2020 is allowed setting aside the impugned order of the District Collector. ii. W.P.(C).No.10666/2020 is allowed directing the Municipality to consider the application for renewal of licence subject to following conditions: (a) if renewed, it would be subject to the outcome of W.P.(C).No.6549/2018. (b) it will be subject to the outcome of any decision to be taken by the licensing authority under the Petroleum Rules, pursuant to the direction of this Court in W.P.(C).No.20574/2020. **`W.P.(C) Nos.`** 10213/2020, 10666/2020 & 20574/2020 ## **-:28:-** iii. W.P.(C).No.20574/2020 is allowed. The second respondent in the writ petition is directed to pass orders on the renewal application submitted by HPCL after adverting to the objection of N.Krishnan referable to Rule 152 of the Petroleum Rules and in the light of the Apex Court judgment in **C.Albert Morris** case ( _supra_ ), within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing HPCL and N.Krishnan or his authorised representative. No costs. **Sd/-** **A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** **JUDGE** ms **WP(C)Nos.10213,10666 & 20574/2020 29** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10213/2020** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16.03.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICEDATED 23.03.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.04.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.04.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.05.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.05.2020 IN WP(C) NO. 9400 OF 2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY (ALONG WITH TYPED COPY) OF THE LICENCE GRANTED BY THE CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES IN FORM K DATED NIL.** - **EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE FROM THE PETROLEUM AND EXPLOSIVES SAFETY ORGANISATION DATED 01/07/2016, RENEWED UPTO 31/12/2018.** - **EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWAL APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 24/12/2018.** - **EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE (WITHOUT ENCLOSURES) DATED 19/06/2019 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, ERNAKULAM.** - **EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 06/07/2019.** **EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.2.2020 ALONG WITH THE BHARATKOSH RECEIPT DATED 14.2.2020.** **EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.5.2020 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES PESO.** **WP(C)Nos.10213,10666 & 20574/2020 30** - **EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE NO-OBJECTION CERTIFICATE GRANTED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE DATED 24.5.2006.** - **EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWED LICENSE DATED 25.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE PESO.** - **EXHIBIT P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE DATED 6.4.2019 FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1.4.2019 TO 31.3.2020.** - **EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF RENEWAL FEE DATED 5.2.2020.** - **EXHIBIT P18 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE THRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY DATED 6.3.2020.** - **EXHIBIT P19 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 9.3.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P20 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.2.2019 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN IA NO 1/2019 IN WPC NO 6549/2018.** - **EXHIBIT P21 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ALL KERALA FEDERATION OF PETROLEUM TRADERS CERTIFYING THAT THE 2ND PETITIONER IS A MEMBER OF THE ASSOCIATION DATED 9.3.2020.** - **EXHIBIT P22 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 17.3.2020 ISSUED BY THE THRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY.** - **EXHIBIT P23 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 21.5.2020 ISSUED BY THE THRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY.** - **EXHIBIT P24 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 22.5.2020. EXHIBIT P25 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.5.2020 ISSUED BY THE THRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY.** - **EXHIBIT P26 A TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWAL APPLICATION ALONG WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF FEE DATED 6.11.2019 TO THE FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICE DEPARTMENT.** - **EXHIBIT P27 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 1.12.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P28 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4.9.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.** **WP(C)Nos.10213,10666 & 20574/2020 31** - **EXHIBIT P29 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4.7.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P30 A TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 23.12.2019.** - **EXHIBIT P31 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL COVER DATED NIL EVIDENCING RECEIPT ONLY ON 15.4.2020** - **EXHIBIT P32 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 1.6.2020 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN PC NO 10666 OF 2020** - **EXHIBIT P33 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL TO THE ALTERATIONS MADE TO THE LICENCED PREMISED DATED 13.8.1993.** - **EXHIBIT P34 A TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE DATED 4.8.2009 ISSUED BY THE THRIPUNITHRA MUNICIPALITY.** ## **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT R5A TRUE COPY OF LEASE DEED DATED 23.12.1994.** - **EXHIBIT R5 B TRUE COPY OF REGISTERED NOTICE DATED 8.6.2012 SERVED ON THE 1ST PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT R5 C TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 22.6.2012 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT R5 D TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 15.2.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE TAHSILDAR.** - **EXHIBIT R5 E TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 24.3.2020 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.** - **EXHIBIT R5 F TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 6.3.2020 ISSUED BY THE TRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT R5 G TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 17.3.2020 ISSUED BY THE TRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT R5 H TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 25.5.2020 ISSUED BY THE TRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY.** **WP(C)Nos.10213,10666 & 20574/2020 32** **EXHIBIT R5 I TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 27-11-2019 FROM THE FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES. EXHIBIT R5(J) TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2006910 SCC 228. EXHIBIT R5(K) TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 19.6.2019 FROM THE DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT R5(L) TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS, DEPICTING THE LIE AND NATURE OF THE PETITIONERS OUTLET AND ITS SURROUNDINGS. EXHIBIT R5(M) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT PUT OF THE E-MAIL COMMUNICATION DATED 29.10.2012 BY THE FIRST PETITIONER.EXHIBIT R5(M) TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED 5.2.1969. EXHIBIT R5(N) TRUE COPY OF THE O.S NO 293/2013 ON THE FILES OF THE SUB COURT EERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT R5(N) TRUE COPY OF AFFIXTURE NOTICE DATED 18.3.2020. EXHIBIT R5(O) TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER HEREIN IN OS 293/2013 ON THE FILES OF THE SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT R5(P) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION BY THE FIRST PETITIONER HEREIN FILED FOR REFERRING THE SUIT MATTER FOR ARBITRATION OS 293/2013 ON THE FILES OF THE SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT R5(Q) TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE DEPONENT IN THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION IN IA 6 OF 2019 OPC 1500/2015. EXHIBIT R5(R) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 28.2.2019 FILED THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, KENDRIYA BHAVAN KAKKAND. EXHIBIT R5(S) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 19.6.2019 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, KENDRIYA BHAVAN KAKKANAD.** **WP(C)Nos.10213,10666 & 20574/2020 33** - **EXHIBIT R5(T) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 6.7.2019 ISSUED BY THE DEPONENT OF THE WRIT PETITION TO THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, KENDRIYA BHAVAN KAKKANAD.** - **EXHIBIT R5(U) TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD IN LAC NO 6/2019 BEARING NO 195/2019 DATED 25.9.2019.** - **EXHIBIT R5(V) TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS 1174 OF 2019 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFFS COURT ERNAKULAM.** - **EXHIBIT R5(W) TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND PETITIONER IN OS 1174/2019 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT ERNAKULAM.** - **EXHIBIT R5(X) TRUE COPY OF THE ARBITRATION REFERENCE APPLICATION MOVED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE SAME DEPONENT IN ABOVE WPC** - **EXHIBIT R5(Y) TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERLY VALIDATED ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF THE EXHIBIT R5(A) PROPERTY.** - **EXHIBIT R5(Z) TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED 18.10.2020 EVIDENCING DEATH OF SMT LAKSHMI MARAR.** - **EXHIBIT R5(AA) TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE DATED 3.5.2011, BEARING NO K.DIS 26342/A5/10.** - **EXHIBIT R5(AB) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 28.6.2016 TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA THROUGH THE MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM & NATURAL GAS.** - **EXHIBIT R5(AC) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 18.7.2016 BY THE MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM & NATURAL GAS TO THE FIRST PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT R5(AD) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 119.11.2019 FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES.** - **EXHIBIT R5(AE) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 26.11.2019 FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE JOINT CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, CHENNAI.** **WP(C)Nos.10213,10666 & 20574/2020 34** **EXHIBIT R5(AF) TRUE COPY OF THE PINT OUT OF THE E-MAIL COMPLAINT DATED 10.3.2020 FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES. EXHIBIT R5(AG) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE FILE NOTE PREPARED BY THE HEALTH INSPECTOR OF THRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY IN CONNECTION WITH THE RENEWAL PROCESS OF THE TRADE LICENCE APPLICATION.** **EXHIBIT R5(AH) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE ISSUED BY THE LAWYER OF THE PETITIONERS DATED 28/6/2020.** //TRUE COPY// P.S.TO JUDGE **WP(C)Nos.10213,10666 & 20574/2020 35** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10666/2020** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT FOR LEASE EXECUTED BETWEEN MRS. LEKSHMI MAARAR AND 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 23.12.1994.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 28.05.2015 IN O.S.NO.293 OF 2013 OF SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF LICENCE IN FORM-K ISSUED BY THE LICENSING AUTHORITY, CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, MADRAS DATED 30.12.1967.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 01.07.2016 OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, ERNAKULAM.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 26.05.2020 OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EXPLOSIVES COMMUNICATED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT THAT THE LICENCE IS IN FORCE UNTIL FURTHER ORDERS UNDER RULE 148(5) OF THE PETROLEUM AMENDMENT RULES, 2018.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 27.02.2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.6549 OF 2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DIRECTING LOCAL AUTHORITY TO NOT TO TAKE COERCIVE STEPS.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 25.02.2019 IN W.P.(C) NO.6549 OF 2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DIRECTING THE LOCAL AUTHORITY TO RENEW THE LICENCE PROVISIONALLY.** **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF TRADE LICENCE DATED 06.04.2019 ISSUED BY TRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY.** **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF EXHIBIT P7 LICNECE ON 05.02.2020 THROUGH ONLINE FOR THE PERIOD 2020 - 2021.** **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 06.03.2020 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **WP(C)Nos.10213,10666 & 20574/2020 36** - **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF EXPLANATION DATED 09.03.2020 TO EXHIBIT P9 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 17.03.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT REFERRING THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 02.05.2020 TO EXHIBIT P11 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 21.05.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DIRECTING TO PRODUCE LICENCE, NOC AND CONSENT.** - **EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 16.05.2020 OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ORDERING CLOSURE OF PETROLEUM OUTLET.** - **EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 25.05.2020 IN W.P.(C) NO.10213 OF 2020 DIRECTING TO MAINTAIN STATUS QUO.** - **EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF EXPLANATION DATED 22.05.2020 TO EXHIBIT P13 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDING DATED 25.05.2020 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT REJECTING EXHIBIT P8 LICENCE APPLICATION.** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R4(A) TRUE PRINT OUT OF THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE PETROLEUM RULES, 2002. EXHIBIT R4(B) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED ON APPLICATION UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT AT THE OFFICE OF THE FIRE AND RESCUE DEPARTMENT DATED 27.11.2019.** **EXHIBIT R4(C) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 11.11.2019 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE FIRE AND RESCUE DEPARTMENT.** **WP(C)Nos.10213,10666 & 20574/2020 37** |**EXHIBIT R4(D)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED**| |---|---| ||**19.11.2019 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE FIRE**| ||**AND RESCUE DEPARTMENT.**| |**EXHIBIT R4(E)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA FIRE FORCE ACT 1962.**| |**EXHIBIT R4(F)**|**PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SHOWING PROXIMITY OF THE**| ||**BUILDINGS FROM THE PETROLEUM OUTLET.**| |**EXHIBIT R4(G)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DATED 5.2.1969**| ||**BEARING DOCUMENT NO.599/1969 OF THRIPUNITHURA**| ||**SUB REGISTRY.**| |**EXHIBIT R4(H)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.1.2020 IN IA**| ||**9185/2019 IN OS 1174/2019 ISSUED BY THE**| ||**PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM.**| |**EXHIBIT R4(I)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN (ALBERT MORRIS VS**| ||**K.CHANDRASEKHARAN : 2006 (1) SCC 228).**| |**EXHIBIT R4(J)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.12.2018**| ||**SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT SEEKING**| ||**RENEWAL OF LICENCE.**| |**EXHIBIT R4(K)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT CONDITION PRESCRIBED**| ||**IN THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE FIRE & RESCUE**| ||**DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT OF KERALA UNDER THE**| ||**HEADING "SERVICES > NOC > OTHERS" AND ITS**| ||**LEGIBLE COPY.**| |**EXHIBIT R4(L)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED IN THE**| ||**OFFICIAL SITE OF KERALA STATE POLLUTION**| ||**CONTROL BOARD.**| |**EXHIBIT R4(M)**|**TRUE PRINT OUT REGARDING THE FORMATION HISTORY**| ||**OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS PER THE OFFICIAL**| ||**WEBSITE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER THE**| ||**HEADING-"ABOUT US > OUR HERITAGE".**| ||//TRUE COPY//| P.S.TO JUDGE **WP(C)Nos.10213,10666 & 20574/2020 38** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C)NO.20574/2020** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DATED 23.12.1994 BEARING NO.5159/94 OF THRIPUNITHURA SUB REGISTRY. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 28.06.2020 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.CRO/AT/PESO/9 DATED 24.12.2018 WHEREIN 6TH RESPONDENT HAD SUBMITTED THE LIST OF UNITS, INCLUDING EXHIBIT P1 UNIT REQUESTED FOR RENEWAL FOR A PERIOD OF 3 YEARS FROM 01.01.2019 TO 31.12.2021. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.02.2019 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.CRO/AT/E& P DATED 17.02.2020 WITH COPY OF THE PROOF OF PAYMENT SUBMITTED FOR RENEWAL AFTER EXPIRY OF THE ALLEGED ERSTWHILE LICENCE. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE MAIL DATED 10.03.2020 SENT TO THE RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C)NO.15633/2020 DATED 17.08.2020. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 15693/2020 DATED 03.08.2020. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)NO. 15663/2020 DATED 14.08.2020. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.05.2020 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DIRECTING CLOSURE OF EXHIIT P1 UNIT TILL VALID LICENSE WAS SECURED. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.05.2020 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE THRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY.** **WP(C)Nos.10213,10666 & 20574/2020 39** - **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.05.2020 BEARING NO. P/SC/KL/14/716 (P3 5677) WHICH WAS ISSUED ILLEGALLY BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE MASS COMPLAINT FROM THE NEIGHBORS UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF PRIEST OF THE NEARBY CHURCH.** - **EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT (REPORTED)BY THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT, IN ALBERT MORRIS VS. K. CHANDRASEKHARAN.** - **EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND COMMUNICATIONS ISSUED, (11.9.2020 FOLLOWED BY THE ORDER DATED 19.10.2020) OF THE REGIONAL FIRE OFFICER.** - **EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 12.11.2020 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER BEARING NO.G.O.(MS)NO.170/2015/HOME DATED 12.8.2015.** - **EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE ACT NO.4 OF 1974 TO SHOW THAT THE ESSO PETROLEUM WAS UNDER TAKEN BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ONLY IN 1974.** - **EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT FROM THE WIKIPEDIA WITH RESPECT TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT SHOWING THAT THE 6TH RESPONDENT IS INCORPORATED ONLY IN 1974.** - **EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF HEARING HELD BY 5TH RESPONDENT ON 24.11.20 AS PER THE DIRECTION IN EXHIBIT P1 AND THE COVERING LETTER BY WHICH THE MINUTES IS FORWARDED TO THE PETITIONER.** - **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT R6(A) A PHOTOSTAT OFFICE COPY (ALONG WITH TYPED COPY) OF THE LICENCE GRANTED BY THE CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES IN FORM K DATED NIL.** - **EXHIBIT R6(B) A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LICENCE FROM THE PETROLEUM AND EXPLOSIVES SAFETY ORGANISATION DATED 1.7.2016 RENEWED UP TO 31.12.2018.** - **EXHIBIT R6(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE (WITHOUT ENCLOSURES)DATED 19.06.2019 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, ERNAKULAM.** **WP(C)Nos.10213,10666 & 20574/2020 40** **EXHIBIT R6(D) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THIS RESPONDENT DATED 06.07.2019 EXHIBIT R6(E) A TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE GRANTED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE DATED 24.5.2006. EXHIBIT R6(F) A TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE DATED 06.04.2019 FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01.04.2019 TO 31.03.2020.**