Kerala High Court
M.S.Jayachandran vs The District Collector on 16 April, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 26TH CHAITHRA, 1943
WP(C).No.30037 OF 2019(D)
PETITIONER/S:
M.S.JAYACHANDRAN,
AGED 48 YEARS,
S/O SIVASANKARA PILLA,
MUKALUVILA KIZHAKETHIL(H),
KAKKAKUNNU.P.O,
SOORANADU SOUTH,
KOLLAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.R.VINOD
SMT.M.S.LETHA
KUM.K.S.SREEREKHA
SRI.NABIL KHADER
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION,
KOLLAM-691013.
2 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION,
KOLLAM-691013.
3 THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARMTENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
4 THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER,
FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT,
KOLLAM-691013.
5 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
W.P.(C) No.30037 of 2019 &
con.cases 2
6 NARAYA ENERGY LTD,
6B, 6TH FLOOR, NOEL FOCUS,
SEAPORT AIRPORT ROAD,
CHITTETHUKARA,
CSEZ.P.O, PIN-682037.
R6 BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ
R6 BY ADV. SRI.S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA)
BY SMT.O.M.SALEENA, CGC
BY SRI.K.J.MANURAJ, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
16.04.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).1924/2020(M), WP(C).24471/2020(H),
WP(C).1798/2021(Y), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.30037 of 2019 &
con.cases 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 26TH CHAITHRA, 1943
WP(C).No.1924 OF 2020(M)
PETITIONER/S:
Y. ASHRAF,
AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. YUNUSKUTTY,
SAFA HOUSE, IRAVICHIRA,
SOORANADU, P.O., PIN 690 522.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.R.VINOD
SMT.M.S.LETHA
KUM.K.S.SREEREKHA
SRI.NABIL KHADER
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM, PIN-691 013.
2 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM, PIN-691 013.
3 THE CHIEF ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.
4 THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER,
FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT,
KOLLAM, PIN-691 013.
5 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.
W.P.(C) No.30037 of 2019 &
con.cases 4
6 NARAYA ENERGY LTD.,
6B, 6TH FLOOR, NOEL FOCUS,
SEAPORT-AIRPORT ROAD, CHITTETHUKKARA,
CZEZ P.O., PIN-682 037,
REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT GENERAL MANAGER.
7 MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS
REGIONAL OFFICE (KERALA AND LAKSHADWEEP REGION),
PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, OPPOSITE MUSEUM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN-695 003
REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICER MORTH
R6 BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ
R6 BY ADV. SRI.S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA)
R7 BY SMT.O.M.SALEENA, CGC
BY SMT.G.RANJITA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
16.04.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).30037/2019(D), WP(C).24471/2020(H),
WP(C).1798/2021(Y), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.30037 of 2019 &
con.cases 5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 26TH CHAITHRA, 1943
WP(C).No.24471 OF 2020(H)
PETITIONER/S:
SAINUDEEN S.,
AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. SULAIMAN RAWTHER,
SS NIVAS, PADIJATTOM KIZAHKU,
SOORANAD P.O, SOORANAD NORTH VILLAGE,
KUNNATHUR TALUK,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, KERALA.
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT PARNKIMANVILAYIL VEEDU,
THEKKE MURI, SOORANAD P.O.,
KOLLAM DISTRICT-690 522
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA)
SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ
SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)
SRI.SANJAY JOHNSON
SHRI VIJAYKRISHNAN S. MENON
SHRI.JOHN GOMEZ
SHRI.ANANDA PADMANABHAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 CHIEF TOWN PLANNER
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER,
SWARAJ BHAVAN, 2ND FLOOR,
NANTHANCODE, KOWIDAR P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003
2 DISTRICT TOWN PLANNEER,
DISTRICT TOWN PLANNING OFFICE,
MUNICIPAL BUILDING CHINNAKADA,
KOLLAM, KERALA 691 001
3 PORUVAZHI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
AMBALATHUM BHAGOM P.O.,
PORUVAZHI, KOLLAM-690 520.
W.P.(C) No.30037 of 2019 &
con.cases 6
4 SECRETARY,
PORUVAZHI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
AMBALATHUM BHAGOM P.O,
PORUVAZHI, KOLLAM 690 520
5 M.S.JAYACHANDRAN,
AGED 48, S/O.SIVASANKARA PILLAI,
MUKALUVILA KIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE,
KAKKAKKUNNU P.O.,
SHOORANADU SOUTH,
KOLLAM, PIN-690 522.
IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 23-11-2020
IN IA 1/2020
R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.H.HANIL KUMAR
R4 BY ADV. SRI.R.RENJITH
R5 BY ADV. K.R.VINOD
R5 BY ADV. SMT.M.S.LETHA
R5 BY ADV. KUM.K.S.SREEREKHA
R5 BY ADV. SRI.NABIL KHADER
BY SMT.O.M.SALEENA, CGC
BY SRI.K.J.MANURAJ, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
16.04.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).30037/2019(D), WP(C).1924/2020(M),
WP(C).1798/2021(Y), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.30037 of 2019 &
con.cases 7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 26TH CHAITHRA, 1943
WP(C).No.1798 OF 2021(Y)
PETITIONER/S:
ABHAYA CHANDRAN,
AGED 52 YEARS, S/O MADHAVAN,
KIDANGIL HOUSE, ERAVICHIRA EAST,
SOORANADU SOUTH, KOLLAM,
PIN-690 522.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.R.VINOD
SMT.M.S.LETHA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 PORUVAZHI GRAMA PANCHAYATH
AMBALATHUMBHAGAM P.O.,
PORUVAZHI, KOLLAM,
PIN-690 520,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2 THE SECRETARY,
PORUVAZHI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
AMBALATHUMBHAGAM P.O.,
PORUVAZHI, KOLLAM, PIN-690 520.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH,
KOLLAM, PIN-691 013.
4 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
SOORANADU POLICE STATION,
SOORANAD SOUTH, CHAKKUVALLY,
KOLLAM, PIN-690 520.
5 SAINUDHEEN S,
AGED 57 YEARS, S/O SULAIMAN RAWTHER,
S.S.NIVAS, PADINJATTAM KIZHAKKU,
SOORNADU P.O., KOLLAM, PIN-690 520.
W.P.(C) No.30037 of 2019 &
con.cases 8
6 THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER,
MUNICIPAL BUILDING, II FLOOR,
CHINNAKADA, KOLLAM,
PIN-691 001.
R5 BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ
R5 BY ADV. SRI.S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA)
BY SMT.G.RANJITA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
BY SMT.O.M.SALEENA, CGC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
16.04.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).30037/2019(D), WP(C).1924/2020(M),
WP(C).24471/2020(H), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.30037 of 2019 &
con.cases 9
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) Nos.30037 of 2019,
1924 of 2020, 24471 of 2020 and 1798 of 2021
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of April, 2021.
JUDGMENT
The questions arising for consideration in these
matters being closely interlinked, they are disposed of by this
common judgment. The parties and exhibits are referred to in this
judgment, unless otherwise mentioned, as they appear in W.P.(C)
No.1924 of 2020.
2. The facts relevant for adjudication of the
questions are the following : The sixth respondent is a petroleum
company. They have appointed one Sainudeen as their franchisee
for establishing and operating a petroleum retail outlet in a land
abutting NH - 183 at Poruvazhi in Kollam District. In order to
enable the franchisee to establish and operate the petroleum
outlet, the sixth respondent obtained permission from the Ministry
of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India (MoRTH) for
access to the abutting National Highway. Ext.P1 is the access
permission obtained by the sixth respondent. W.P.(C) No.1924 of
W.P.(C) No.30037 of 2019 &
2020 is instituted challenging the access permission aforesaid on
the ground that since there are two intersecting roads to the
highway with carriageway width of more than 3.5 meters within
300 meters from the site of the proposed petroleum outlet, the
access permission is contrary to Ext.P2 norms prescribed by
MoRTH. A statement has been filed on behalf of the MoRTH in the
case pointing out that the width of the carriageway of both the
intersecting roads referred to by the petitioner in the writ petition
is less than 3.5 meters and therefore existence of the said roads
does not contravene Ext.P2 norms. The sixth respondent has also
filed a counter affidavit in the case endorsing the stand taken by
MoRTH. The petitioner disputes the stand of MoRTH in the writ
petition that the width of the carriageway of the intersecting
roads is less than 3.5 meters.
3. Earlier, the sixth respondent had obtained No
Objection Certificate provided for under Rule 144 of the Petroleum
Rules for establishing the petroleum outlet. W.P.(C) No.30037 of
2019 is instituted by one Jayachandran challenging the said No
Objection Certificate. An interim order was passed by this Court
in the said writ petition on 08.11.2019 staying all further
proceedings pursuant to the No Objection Certificate including
construction of buildings for the petroleum outlet. Later, at the
instance of the franchisee of the sixth respondent, this Court
W.P.(C) No.30037 of 2019 &
modified the said interim order on 13.08.2020 and permitted the
franchisee to proceed with the construction of the petroleum
outlet, after obtaining the requisite permits and clearances.
4. The franchisee of the sixth respondent has
though applied for building permit in the meanwhile before the
Grama Panchayat, the said application was forwarded by the
Panchayat to the District Town Planner for layout approval. While
the application was pending consideration before the District
Town Planner, the franchisee proceeded with the construction and
it is at that point of time that the interim order dated 08.11.2019
was passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.30037 of 2019. Later, when
the said interim order was modified by this Court on 13.08.2020,
the franchisee resumed the construction of the petroleum outlet.
On 04.11.2020, the Secretary of the Panchayat restrained the
franchisee from proceeding with the construction since the
construction was without obtaining building permit. The stop
memo issued by the Panchayat in this regard on 04.11.2020 is
under challenge in W.P.(C) No.24471 of 2020 by the franchisee.
W.P.(C) No.1798 of 2021 is one instituted by one Abhaya
Chandran seeking orders restraining the franchisee of the sixth
respondent from constructing the petroleum outlet alleging that
he is proceeding with the construction despite the stop memo
issued by the Secretary of the Panchayat.
W.P.(C) No.30037 of 2019 &
5. Among the intersecting roads referred to in W.P.
(C) No.1924 of 2020, Pandikulam-Mayyathumkara road is one
located at a distance of 217 meters and Mayyathumkara-
Plamukku road is one located at the distance of 190 meters from
the site of the proposed petroleum outlet. Since both the said
roads are located within 300 meters from the site of the proposed
petroleum outlet, the sixth respondent is entitled to access
permission to the highway in terms of Ext.P2 norms only if the
width of the carriageway of the said roads is less than 3.5 meters.
As noted, the specific case of the petitioner in the writ petition is
that the carriageway width of both the roads is more than 3.5
meters. In order to substantiate the said case, the petitioner took
out a commission from this Court. As regards Pandikulam-
Mayyathumkara road, the Advocate Commissioner appointed by
this Court has stated in his report that the width of the
carriageway of the road is 3 meters in terms of the asset register
maintained by the Grama Panchayat; that the road consists of
bitumen laid portion as also concrete shoulders; that the width of
the bitumen laid portion of the road is less than 3 meters; that the
width of the bitumen laid portion together with the concrete
shoulders exceeds 3.5 meters; that concrete shoulders are not
available throughout the road; that at some places, the concrete
shoulders are made at the same level of the bitumen laid portion
W.P.(C) No.30037 of 2019 &
of the road and at some other places, the concrete shoulders are
lying 4 to 5 cms below the bitumen laid portion of the road.
Identical is the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner
as regards Mayyathumkara-Plamukku road also.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in
the writ petitions, the learned Central Government Counsel as
also the learned counsel for the sixth respondent.
7. The petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.30037 of 2019,
1924 of 2020 and 1798 of 2021 have been represented by one
and the same counsel. Similarly, the sixth respondent and the
franchisee of the sixth respondent were represented by one and
the same counsel.
8. The only argument raised by the learned counsel
for the petitioners at the time of hearing is that the concrete
shoulders built on either side of the roads are liable to be treated
as part of the carriageway and if the width of the carriageway is
reckoned on that basis, it can be seen that the access permission
impugned in W.P.(C) No.1924 of 2020 is unsustainable in law.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the sixth
respondent as also their franchisee contended that the petitioner
being a person running a petroleum outlet in the vicinity of the
petroleum outlet proposed by the sixth respondent, he is to be
regarded as a competitor in the trade and such a person cannot
W.P.(C) No.30037 of 2019 &
maintain a writ petition seeking any relief in respect of the
petroleum outlet proposed by the sixth respondent. Placing
reliance on the provisions contained in the Motor Vehicles
(Driving) Regulations, 2017 (the Regulations) framed under the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the learned counsel also contended that
"carriageway" provided for in Ext.P2 norms only includes that part
or parts of the road normally used for vehicular traffic and the
concrete shoulders to the roads cannot therefore be reckoned as
part of the carriageway. It was argued by the learned counsel,
therefore, that in the light of the report of the Advocate
Commissioner, the contention of the petitioner that the width of
the carriageway of the intersecting roads is more than 3.5 meters
is only to be rejected. As regards W.P.(C) No.24471 of 2020, it was
pointed out by the learned counsel that it is not necessary to
consider the said writ petition as the only impediment for the
franchisee of the sixth respondent in getting the building permit
was that the District Town Planner has not granted layout
approval for the site, and the said impediment no longer exists as
the layout approval for the site of the petroleum outlet has
already been granted by the competent authority during the
pendency of the writ petitions.
10. In the light of the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel for the sixth respondent, the first and foremost
W.P.(C) No.30037 of 2019 &
question to be considered is as to whether the petitioner in W.P.
(C) No.1924 of 2020 has the locus standi to institute the said writ
petition.
11. The petitioner has not disclosed in the said writ
petition that he is a person operating a petroleum outlet in the
vicinity of the petroleum outlet proposed by the sixth respondent.
However, in the cause title of I.A.No.1 of 2021 filed by the
petitioner in the writ petition, it is shown that the petitioner is the
Secretary of the Quilon District Petroleum Dealers Association. In
the course of the hearing, on a query from the court, the learned
counsel conceded that the petitioner is a person running a
petroleum outlet. Insofar as the petitioner seeks a writ of
certiorari in the proceedings in his individual capacity and not in
public interest, it is now trite that the petitioner should be a
person aggrieved in order to have locus standi to institute the writ
petition. Generally, infringement of some legal right or prejudice
to some legal interest inhering in the petitioner is necessary to
regard and treat the petitioner as a person aggrieved [See
Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir
Ahmed and others, (1976) 1 SCC 671]. In the case on hand,
the norms of MoRTH only regulate the exercise of private rights of
individuals to run petroleum outlets. The petitioner has no case
that he has a personal or individual right in the subject-matter nor
W.P.(C) No.30037 of 2019 &
that any of his rights are infringed or any prejudice has been
caused to some legal interest inhering in the petitioner. Of
course, if the sixth respondent is permitted to operate the
petroleum outlet, the petitioner and the members of the
association, of which he is the Secretary, would be commercially
affected. Such harm or loss is not wrongful in the eye of law,
because it does not result in injury to a legal right or a legally
protected interest, the business competition causing it being a
lawful activity. Needless to say that the petitioner cannot be
regarded as a person aggrieved so as to confer him locus standi
to institute a writ petition of the instant nature.
12. Even assuming that the petitioner has locus
standi to institute the writ petition, according to me, the
contention raised by the petitioner that the width of the carriage
way of the intersecting roads referred to in the writ petition is
more than 3.5 meters is liable to be rejected for more reasons
than one. The relevant page of the asset register maintained by
the Panchayat containing the particulars of the two intersecting
roads referred to in the writ petition has been made available by
the Advocate Commissioner along with his report. In the asset
register, there is a specific column to enter the width of the
carriageway of the roads included therein and the width of the
carriageway of both roads is included in the asset register as 3
W.P.(C) No.30037 of 2019 &
meters. The asset register of the Panchayat being a statutory
document maintained in terms of the provisions of the Kerala
Panchayat Raj (Accounts) Rules 2011, the entries therein can be
presumed to be correct unless it is established that the same are
incorrect. That apart, "carriageway" is defined in the Regulations
framed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 thus:
"(b) "carriageway" means the part or parts of a road normally
used by vehicular traffic, whether separated from one
another by a dividing strip or a difference of level or not;"
As explicit from the extracted definition, only that part of the road
which is normally used by vehicular traffic can be regarded as
carriageway. As noted, it is revealed from the report filed by the
Advocate Commissioner that the roads consist of bitumen laid
portions as also concrete shoulders; that the width of the bitumen
laid portion of the roads is less than 3 meters; that concrete
shoulders are not available throughout the roads and that
concrete shoulders are not made throughout the roads at the
same level of the bitumen laid portion of the roads. In the
aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that the concrete
shoulders of the roads cannot be regarded as the carriageway, for
they cannot be regarded as intended for vehicular traffic.
13. As noted, the W.P.(C) No.1924 of 2020 is one
instituted without disclosing the fact that the petitioner is running
W.P.(C) No.30037 of 2019 &
a petroleum outlet. It is only when this Court found on facts that
the petitioner is a rival operator of petroleum outlet, it was
conceded by the learned counsel that the petitioner is also an
operator of a petroleum outlet. Similar is the situation in W.P.(C)
No.30037 of 2019. The said writ petition was also filed without
disclosing the fact that the petitioner therein is running a
petroleum outlet. As in the case of W.P.(C) No.1924 of 2020, it is
only when this Court found on facts that the petitioner is a rival
operator of petroleum outlet, it was conceded by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.30037
of 2019 is also an operator of petroleum outlet. In other words,
the petitioner as also the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.30037 of 2019
were masquerading themselves to be bonafide litigants and
making the constitutional mechanism provided under Article 226
as tool for the purpose of protecting their commercial interest.
The misuse of the jurisdiction of this Court is a very serious
matter. If litigations of this nature are permitted, it would seriously
denude the efficacy of the justice delivery system. Needless to
say, persons who have chosen to misuse the jurisdiction of this
Court shall be imposed exemplary costs so as to prevent them
from making such attempts in future.
In the circumstances, W.P.(C) Nos.30037 of 2019 and
1924 of 2020 are dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- each to be
W.P.(C) No.30037 of 2019 &
paid to the sixth respondent. The costs aforesaid shall be
deposited before this Court within one month or otherwise, the
sixth respondent will be entitled to realise the same in accordance
with law. W.P.(C) Nos.24471 of 2020 and 1798 of 2021 are
disposed of with a direction that the petitioner in W.P.(C)
No.24471 of 2020 will be entitled to put up the construction only
after obtaining building permit from the Panchayat.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
Mn
W.P.(C) No.30037 of 2019 &
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30037/2019
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
NO.46/2019/PWD DATED 22.10.2019.
EXHIBIT P2 THE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
W.P(C)NO.35618/2018 DATED 1.11.2018.
EXHIBIT P3 THE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE
DATED 31.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT IN FAVOR OF THE 6TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 THE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES/NORMS FOR
ACCESS PERMISSIONS TO FUEL STATION
ISSUED BY MoRTH DATED 24.07.2013.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R6(e) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.M791546/2018
DATED 28.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R6(f) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOC ISSUED BY THE
SECOND RESPONDENT.
W.P.(C) No.30037 of 2019 &
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1924/2020
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE COPY OF THE APPROVAL OBTAINED BY THE
6TH RESPONDENT FROM THE 7TH RESPONDENT
DATED 1.8.2019.
EXHIBIT P2 THE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES/NORMS FOR ACCESS
PERMISSION TO FUEL STATIONS DATED 24.7.2013
ISSUED BY MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND
HIGHWAYS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.
EXHIBIT P3 THE COPY OF THE PLAN/SKETCH SUBMITTED BY
THE 6TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 7TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 THE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD (NH) TO
THE PETITIONER DATED 3.12.2018.
RESPONDENT'S/S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF WORK MEMO SUBMITTED BY THE COUNSEL
FOR THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH OF THE SITE.
ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF ASSET
REGISTER-PORUVAZHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH.
ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF PANDIKKULAM-
MAYYATHUMKARA ROAD.
ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH OF PANDIKKULAM-
MAYYATHUMKARA ROAD FROM EAST TO WEST.
ANNEXURE F TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH OF PANDIKKULAM-
MAYYATHUMKARA ROAD FROM WEST TO EAST.
ANNEXURE G TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF
MAYYATHUMKARA-PLAMUKKU ROAD.
W.P.(C) No.30037 of 2019 &
ANNEXURE H TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH OF
MAYYATHUMKARA-PLAMUKKU ROAD FROM WEST TO EAST.
ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH OF
MAYYATHUMKARA-PLAMUKKU ROAD FROM EAST TO WEST.
ANNEXURE R7(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NH DIVISION,
KOLLAM ON 11.02.2020.
EXHIBIT R6(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.RW/TRI/RETAIL
OUTLET/289/2019-20 DATED 01.08.2019 ISSUED
BY THE REGIONAL OFFICER, MINISTRY OF ROAD
TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS.
EXHIBIT R6(b) TRUE COPY OF THE 'GUIDELINES FOR PLANNING
AND DESIGN FOR ROADS AND HIGHWAY PROJECTS
FUNDED BY KIIFB' PUBLISHED ON 20.11.2018.
W.P.(C) No.30037 of 2019 &
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24471/2020
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. RW/TRI/RETAIL
OUTLET/289/2019-20 DATED 01-08-2019 ISSUED
BY THE REGIONAL OFFICER, MINISTRY OF ROAD
TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOC NO. M7/91546/2018
ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
MAGISTRATE DATED 31-10-2019
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT DATED
02-08-2019
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DTD
13-08-2020 IN WP(C) NO. 30037/2019
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD 25-09-2020
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. A3-6184/2020
DATED 05-10-2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND
COMMERCE DATED 26-08-2020
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE 'CONSENT TO ESTABLISH'
ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD DATED 27-11-2018
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. A3-6184/20 DATED
4/11/2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 05-11-2020
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH
RESPONDENT.
W.P.(C) No.30037 of 2019 &
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1798/2021
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE COPY COMMUNICATION ISSUED FROM THE
OFFICE OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2 THE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT LODGED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT ASKING THE 5TH
RESPONDENT TO STOP THE ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION
EXHIBIT P4 THE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
6.1.2021 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R5A A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.TCPKLM/229/2020/C
DATED 01.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE
TOWN PLANNER, KOLLAM.
EXHIBIT R5B A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CERTIFICATE
DATED 26.08.2020 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE.
EXHIBIT R5C A TRUE COPY OF THE 'CONSENT TO ESTABLISH' DATED
27.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD.
