Ratheesh Sreedharan Puthettu vs The District Collector, Kottayam
2021 Latest Caselaw 14780 Ker

WP(C) NO. 6925 OF 2021               1



               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
    THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 6925 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          RATHEESH SREEDHARAN PUTHETTU
          PUTHETTU TRANSPORTS, XVIII/460,
          PUTHETTU BUILDING, 101 JUNCTION,
          PEROOR P.O., ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM.
          BY ADVS.
          PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU
          SMT.SAJITHA GEORGE

RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM,
          OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
          COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM-686 002.
    2     ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOTTAYAM,
          OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
          COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM-686 002.
    3     ETTUMANOOR MUNICIPALITY,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
          ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM-686 631.
    4     NAYANA ENERGY LIMITED,
          NO.3, 5TH FLOOR, MAYFLOWER VALENCIA,
          336/2, AVINASHI ROAD, NAVA INDIA,
          COIMBATORE-641 004, TAMIL NADU.
          BY ADV SHRI.SIBY CHENAPPADY, SC, ETTUMANOOR
          MUNICIPALITY
          SRI. ANEESH JAMES, SC.
          SMT. RASHMI. K. M, GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 15.07.2021,      THE COURT   ON THE    SAME DAY     DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 6925 OF 2021                2




                       WP(C)No.6925 of 2021

              (Dated this the 15th day of July, 2021)

                             JUDGMENT

Heard Sri Philip J. Vettickattu on behalf of the petitioner,

Smt. Rashmi K.M., Government pleader, on behalf of the respondents 1

and 2 and Sri Aneesh James, Standing counsel for the 3rd respondent

Municipality. Even though notice was served on the 4th respondent, the

4th respondent has not chosen to enter appearance.

2. The writ petition has been filed praying to quash Exhibit P9

whereby, the petitioner's request for a No Objection Certificate for

installation of customer pump facility (20KL capacity tank) with one

fuel dispensing pump, exclusively for refilling the petitioner's Trucks

which are being used for his transporting business, has been rejected.

The case of the petitioner is that he owns 8 National Permit trucks as

evidenced by Exhibit P1, that Exhibit P2 will show he has taken GST

registration and that Exhibit P3 would show he has trade license issued

by the 3rd respondent Municipality. For the purpose of facilitating easy

supply of diesel to his trucks, the petitioner approached the petroleum

companies for establishing a customer pump facility, for supply of

high-speed diesel exclusively for own vehicles. The pump was

proposed to be established in his open parking yard.

3. The petitioner submitted Exhibit P5 application to the 1 st

respondent requesting for a no objection Certificate. The 2 nd

respondent, who is authorised to consider such requests for No

Objection Certificate, rejected the request of the petitioner, by Exhibit

P9 order. Exhibit P9 order shows that the Tahsildar, Kottayam, The

District Police Head, Kottayam, and the Regional Fire Officer, Fire and

Rescue Services, Kottayam, had submitted reports recommending the

grant of No Objection Certificate. It appears that the Secretary of the

3rd respondent Muncipality had submitted a report pointing out that

there is shortage in the width of the road in certain points, near the

site where the tank is to be located. On the basis of the above

objection of the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent has rejected the

request made by the petitioner.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that the decision was

taken by the 2nd respondent without affording an opportunity of

hearing to the petitioner. It is contended that Rule 149 of the

Petroleum Rules, 2002, requires the District authority to record in

writing, the reasons for such refusal and that the applicant should be

given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before refusing a

request for No Objection Certificate. I find considerable force in the

contention raised by the petitioner. Rule149 of the Petroleum Rules

2002 reads thus:

"149. Refusal of no-objection certificate. -

A district authority refusing to grant a no objection certificate under rule 144 shall record, in writing, the reasons for such refusal and shall furnish to the applicant a copy of such order:

Provided that, before refusing to grant a no-objection certificate, the applicant shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard."

5. It can be seen from the above, that if the District authority

is refusing to grant a No Objection Certificate, necessarily the applicant

has to be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. A reading of

Exhibit P9 would show that no such opportunity was afforded to the

applicant before rejecting the request for the No Objection Certificate.

The order only cites the reports of the various authorities and

thereafter in the operating portion, rejects the request on the basis of

the report of the 3rd respondent. The order Exhibit P9 does not meet

the requirements of law and is liable to be set aside.

In the above circumstances, this writ petition is allowed. Exhibit

P9 order issued by the 2nd respondent is set aside. The 2 nd respondent

shall reconsider the application for grant of No Objection Certificate

and take a decision after hearing the petitioner. Fresh orders in this

regard shall be issued within one month from the date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

T.R.RAVI, JUDGE dsn

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6925/2021

PETITIONER ANNEXURE EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATES OF THE PETITIONER'S VEHICLES. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF GST REGISTRATION CERTIFICATES WITH RESPECT TO THE CONCERN OF THE PETITIONER DATED 09.08.2017.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF TRADE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE MUNICIPALITY DATED 23.06.2020.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF OFFER LETTER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 03.09.2020.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR NOC DATED 09.09.2020.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE FIRE AND RESCUE DATED 11.11.2020.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF REPORT OF THE TALUK OFFICE, KOTTAYAM DATED 09.11.2020.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOTTAYAM DATED 08.01.2021.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF DISTRICT MAGISTRATE DATED 24.02.2021.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 23.01.2021 OF THE MUNICIPALITY, OBTAINED UNDER THE RTI ACT.