High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition disposed of as above with procedu...

PETER P.GEORGE v. THE STATE OF KERALA & OTHERS

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 10595 of 2020
Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2021-11-24
Court Decision / Holding
The court disposed of the writ petition by directing respondents 2 and 4 to consider Exhibits P10 and P11 representations expeditiously, within a three-month period from receipt of the judgment. Before passing orders, they should hear the petitioner and other respondents, if necessary. The court clarified that it had not decided the matter on merit and left the maintainability of the representations to be determined by the concerned authorities. No interim order restraining construction was issued. The petition was thus disposed of with a procedural direction: to address the representations in due course, in accordance with law.
Final Disposition
Writ petition disposed of as above with procedural directions to consider Exts. P10 and P11 within three months, after hearing if necessary; merits and maintainability left to be determined by the concerned authorities; no interim order granted.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Peter P. George

Respondents

  • The State of Kerala represented by the Additional Chief Secretary, Public Works Department
  • The Additional District Magistrate, Kakkanad, Ernakulam
  • Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, A and D Wing, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai
  • Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, CGO Complex, Kakkanad, Ernakulam
  • The Piravom Municipality, Piravom, Ernakulam District
  • The Territory Manager (Retail), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Ernakulam Territory (Retail) Office, Irimpanam Installation, Cochin
  • Suneesh.O.N., S/o Narayan P.A., Payyappillil House, South Marady P.O., North Marady, Muvattupuzha
  • Addl.R8. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited represented by Territory Manager (Retail), BPCL Ernakulam Territory (Retail) Office, Irimpanam Installation, Ernakulam-682309

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Arun Chandran
  • • Sri.J.Vishnu

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Shri.P.Vijayakumar, ASG of India
  • • Shri.George Sebastian, SC, Piravom Municipality
  • • M.GopiKrishnan Nambiar
  • • Sri.S.K.Adhithyan
  • • M.GopiKrishnan Nambiar
  • • Sri.K.John Mathai
  • • Sri.K.S.Arun Kumar
  • • Sri.Joson Manavalan
  • • Sri.Kuryan Thomas
  • • Sri.Pauloose C. Abraham

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition (WP(C) No.10595 of 2020) by Peter P. George challenges the proposed BPCL petrol retail outlet at Elanji, Piravom, Ernakulam district. The petitioner contends that exhibits leading to the proposed project, notably Exhibit-P3 (NOC) and related approvals, are incompatible with statutory and policy guidelines—specifically the Indian Roads Congress (IRC) guidelines and Public Works Department (PWD) guidelines. The prayer seeks certiorari to quash Exhibit-P3, a declaration that the outlet would violate IRC and PWD guidelines and cannot operate, and a direction to the 3rd respondent not to grant a license to the 6th and 7th respondents. Additional reliefs include directing the 2nd and 4th respondents to expeditiously dispose of Exhibits P10 and P11 complaints and ensuring no construction activity on plots covered by the lease (Exhibit P9). In proceedings, the Government Pleader and Standing Counsel for BPCL opposed maintainability and authority to entertain the representations, arguing the petitioner is not an aggrieved party and that there is no statutory backing. The court, noting the limited nature of the prayers, disposed of the petition by directing the concerned authorities to consider the representations (P10, P11) within a specified time while preserving the merits for later determination and without granting any interim relief against construction.

Provisions of Law Cited

IRC 12-2016 Unified Guidelines for Access Permission for Fuel StationG.O. (MS) No. 16/2020/PWD dated 10.02.2020

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submits that Ext-P3 (the NOC) and related records justify quashing the challenged approval process and contending that the petrol bunk vendor would violate IRC guidelines and PWD norms. He seeks certiorari to quash Exhibit-P3, a declaration that the proposed outlet contravenes IRC and PWD guidelines and cannot operate, a direction to the 3rd respondent not to grant license to the 6th and 7th respondents, and to the 2nd and 4th respondents to dispose of Exts.P10 and P11 complaints expeditiously. He also prays that construction at the lease plots (Exhibit P9) not be allowed. The petition asks for such reliefs as fit in the circumstances. Positioning these prayers against the factual backdrop, he asserts procedural flaws and lack of adequate approvals before PNBP’s outlet could commence.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the petition lacks aggrieved status and statutory backing for directing the 2nd and 4th respondents to entertain Exts.P10 and P11. The Government Pleader and the Standing Counsel for respondents 6 and 8 argue there is no statutory authorization for the 2nd and 4th respondents to adjudicate the representations and that the petitioner is not aggrieved or adversely affected. They emphasize that the authority to act lies with proper statutory channels and that the maintainability of the representations is questionable. Counsel for BPCL and other respondents maintain that the petition is a rival claimant seeking to stall construction; hence, maintainability and locus standi are in issue. The court’s stance is to refrain from deciding the merits at this stage and to consider the representations under lawful process.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against PETER P.GEORGE v. THE STATE OF KERALA & OTHERS and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA, ``` ## **`1943`** ## **`WP(C) NO. 10595 OF 2020`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` PETER P.GEORGE POONTHOTTATHIL HOUSE, ELANJI P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ``` ``` BY ADVS. ARUN CHANDRAN SRI.J.VISHNU ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** - `1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1ST FLOOR, SOUTH BLOCK, SECRETARIAT, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.` - `2 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM 682 030.` - `3 JOINT CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVE, A AND D WING, BLOCK 1-8, IIND FLOOR, SHASTRI BHAVAN, 26 HADDOUS ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI (TAMIL NADU), 600006.` - `4 DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES C-2 IIRD FLOOR, CGO COMPLEX, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM 682 020.` - `5 THE PIRAVOM MUNICIPALITY, PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 686 664, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.` - `6 THE TERRITORY MANAGER, (RETAIL), BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, ERNAKULAM TERRITORY (RETAIL), OFFICE, IRIMPANAM, INSTALLATION, COCHIN 682 309.` -2- W.P.(C). No. 10595 of 2020 ``` 7SUNEESH.O.N. S/O. NARAYAN P.A., PAYYAPPILLIL HOUSE, SOUTH MARADY P.O. NORTH MARADY, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 686 673. ``` ``` 8ADDL.R8.BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED REPRESENTED BY THE TERRITORY MANAGER(RETAIL),BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED,ERNAKULAM TERRITORY(RETAIL) OFFICE,IRIMPANAM INSTALLATION,ERNAKULAM-682309 ``` ``` (IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 30.6.2020 IN IA 1/2020 IN WPC) ``` ``` BY ADVS. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA SHRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN, SC, PIRAVOM MUNICIPALITY SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR.GP, SRI.S.MANU, ASGI ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` -3- W.P.(C). No. 10595 of 2020 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** ================================================= W.P.(C) No.10595 of 2020 ============================================================= Dated this the 24[th] day of November, 2021 ## **JUDGMENT** The above writ petition is filed with following prayers” - “i. Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Exhibit-P3 and to quash the same. - ii. Issue a writ declaring that the petrol fuel outlet proposed to be set up by the 6th and 7th respondents is in violation of the IRC and PWD guidelines and cannot be allowed to operate. - iii.Issue a writ directing the 3rd respondent not to grant license to the petrol bunk proposed to be set up by the 6th and 7th respondents. - iv. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the 2nd and 4th respondents to dispose of the Exhibit-P10 and Exhibit-P11 complaints before them in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and within a maximum period of 2 weeks. -4- W.P.(C). No. 10595 of 2020 - v. Issue an appropriate writ directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to ensure that no construction activity pertaining to the proposed petrol pump is allowed to be carried out in the plots covered by the Exhibit-P9 lease deed. - vi.Grant such other reliefs as this Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. When this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner confined his prayer for a consideration of Exts.P10 and P11 by respondents 2 and 4. The above prayer is strongly opposed by the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 6 and 8. The Government Pleader and the Standing Counsel submitted that respondents 2 and 4 have no authority to consider these representations and there is no statutory backing for the same. The Government Pleader and the Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner is not an aggrieved party. The Standing Counsel for respondents 6 and 8 takes me through -5- W.P.(C). No. 10595 of 2020 the first sentence in the writ petition, in which it is stated that the petitioner is managing a petrol pump in Elanji, Kottayam. According to the Standing Counsel, he is a rival claimant and he wants to stall the construction of this retail outlet. 3. I don’t want to make any observation about the merit of the case. The limited prayer of the petitioner is to consider Exts.P10 and P11 by respondents 2 and 4. I make it clear that, respondents 2 and 4 can pass appropriate orders in accordance to law. I also make it clear that, I have not considered the maintainability of said representations before the 2[nd] and 4[th] respondents and that also can be considered by respondents 2 and 4. This Court intended to dispose of this writ petition only to pass orders in Exts.P10 and P11 within a time limit. Therefore, all the contentions of the petitioner and the respondents are left open. I also make it clear that I have not passed any interim order staying the construction of the outlet. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following -6- W.P.(C). No. 10595 of 2020 manner: 1. Respondents 2 and 4 are directed to consider Exts.P10 and P11 representations, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 2. Before passing orders in these representations, respondents 2 and 4 will hear the petitioner and the other respondents, if necessary. 3. I make it clear that I have not considered the matter on merit and respondents 2 and 4 are free to pass appropriate orders, in accordance to law. Respondents 2 and 4 are also free to decide the maintainability of said representations before that authority. **sd/-** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** das -7- W.P.(C). No. 10595 of 2020 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10595/2020`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` - `EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BPCL’S REPLY TO THE RTI APPLICATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER, DATED 09.11.2016.` - `EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF INTENT DATED 30.11.2016 FOR RETAIL OUTLET DEALERSHIP ISSUED TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT.` - `EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOC ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM, FOR THE PETROL BUNK, DATED 28.12.2018.` - `EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE PIRAVOM MUNICIPALITY, DATED 09.12.2019.` - `EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. (MS) NO. 16/2020/PWD DATED 10.02.2020., ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.` - `EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT AND AFFIDAVIT IN O.S.NO. 96/2020 FILED BEFORE THE MUSIFF COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA.` - `EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSION REPORT IN O.S. NO. 96/2020 DATED 21.03.2020.` ``` EXHIBIT P8TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE IRC 12-2016 UNIFIED GUIDELINES FOR ACCESS PERMISSION FOR FUEL STATION. ``` - `EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED ENTERED INTO BY THE BPCL DATED 18.03.2020.` ``` EXHIBIT P10TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT, SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ADM, ERNAKULAM, DATED 21.05.2020. ``` -8- W.P.(C). No. 10595 of 2020 ``` EXHIBIT P11 ``` - `TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, DATED 21.05.2020.` ``` RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS ``` - `EXHIBIT R6(a) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 03.06.2020 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PIRAVOM, ALONG WITH AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION` - `EXHIBIT R6(b) TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO ESTABLISH ISSUED BY THE KSPCB DATED 19.10.2019` - `EXHIBIT R6(c)` - `TRUE COPY OF THE TOKEN OF APPROVAL ISSUED BY THE PESO DATED 03.10.2017` - `EXHIBIT R6(d) TRUE COPY OF THE SITE PLAN DATED 25.08.2017` - `EXHIBIT R6(e) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 04.05.2020 SUBMITTED BY BPCL TO PESO FOR CORRECTION OF SY.NO.` - `EXHIBIT R7(a) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF ADVERTISEMENT OF NOTICE FOR RETAIL OUTLET DEALERSHIP PUBLISHED IN THE THE HINDU AND MALAYALA MANORAMA DATED 18.10.2014` - `EXHIBIT R7(b) TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED WILL AS WILL NO.III 79/2000 DATED 31.05.2000 OF SUB REGISTRAR’S OFFICE, PIRAVOM` ``` EXHIBIT R7(c) ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE GIVEN BY VILLAGE OFFICER, PIRAVOM TO BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. DATED 03.06.2020 ``` ``` EXHIBIT R7(d) ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT GIVEN BY CYRIAC MATHEW PRODUCED ALONG WITH THE RETAIL OUTLET DEALERSHIP APPLICATION OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT BEFORE BPCL. ``` -9- W.P.(C). No. 10595 of 2020 ``` EXHIBIT R7(e)TRUE COPY OF THE NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT GIVEN BY JOSEPH MATHEW PRODUCED ALONG WITH THE RETAIL OUTLET DEALERSHIP APPLICATION OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT BEFORE BPCL. ``` -10- W.P.(C). No. 10595 of 2020