Muhammed Vayyoli vs Government Of India Represented ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 10255 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

  FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2021/5TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                   WP(C).No.35733 OF 2019(N)


PETITIONER:

              MUHAMMED VAYYOLI, AGED 69 YEARS,
              S/O. AHAMEDKUTYY HAJI, VAYYOLI HOUSE,
              KODUVALLY (P.O.), KOZHIKODE 673 572.

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.)
              SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR

RESPONDENTS:

     1        GOVERNMENT OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY
              ITS SCRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROAD
              TRANSPOPRT AND HIGHWAYS,
              PARIVAHAN BHAVAN,1, SANSAD MARG,
              NEW DELHI 110 001.

     2        THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
              CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM 676 505.

     3        THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
              CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM 676 505.

     4        THE TAHSILDAR, KONDOTTY TALUK,
              MALAPPURAM 673 638.

     5        REGIONAL OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE
              (KERALA AND LAKSHADWEEP REGION)
              MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS,
              PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, OPPOSITE TO MUSEUM,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033.

     6        CHIEF REGIONAL OFFICER,
              HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.,
              KOZHIKODE RETAIL REGION, ELATHUR,
              KOZHIKODE 673 303.
 WP(C) No.35733/2019
                             :2 :


       7      SALIM, AGED 46 YEARS,
              S/O. POTTANAMCHALIL SAIDALAVI HAJI,
              HOUSE NO. 8/268, PUKKALATHUR,
              PULPATTA (P.O.), MALAPPURAM 676 126.

       8      HASEENA, AGED 39 YEARS,
              W/O. SALIM, HOUSE NO. 8/268,
              PUKKALATHUR, PULPATTA (P.O.),
              MALAPPURAM 676 126.

       9      SMT. SALINI, CHOLAYIL HOUSE,
              KOOTAVIL POOKOLATHUR,
              MALAPPURAM 676 126.

              BY SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASGI
              BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT K.M.RASHMI
              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-R9 BY ADV. SRI.C.A.MAJEED
              R7-R9 BY ADV. SRI.K.H.ASIF
              R7-R9 BY ADV. SMT.MOLTY MAJEED
              R7-R9 BY ADV. SRI.P.B.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR
              R7-R9 BY ADV. SRI.RUBEN GEORGE ROCK

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 26.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.35733/2019
                                :3 :




                        JUDGMENT

~~~~~~~~~

Dated this the 26th day of March, 2021

The petitioner, who is running a Petroleum Retail

Outlet at Chelambra, has filed this writ petition seeking to

quash Exts.P2, P3 and P5 and to direct the 3 rd respondent to

consider Ext.P4 representation to rectify Ext.P3 proceedings.

2. In brief, the case of the petitioner is that he is

running a Petroleum Retail Outlet at Chelambra on the side of

National Highway 66. The 6th respondent-Chief Regional

Officer of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited has

permitted the 9th respondent to set up another Petroleum

Retail Outlet in total violation of Ext.P1 guidelines. According

to the petitioner, the proposed site is facing acquisition

proceedings. There are sharp curves on both sides of the

proposed site.

WP(C) No.35733/2019

3. Clauses 4.2 and 4.3 of Appendix-I to Ext.P1

guidelines/norms for access permission to fuel stations,

private properties, area complexes and such other facilities

along National Highways (Ministry of Road Transport and

Highways letter No.RW/NH-33023/19/99-DO-III dated

24.07.2013) read as follows:-

"4.2. It should be ensured that the location of the proposed fuel station does not interfere with future improvements of the highway and the nearby intersections/junctions.

4.3. The fuel stations would be located where the highway alignment and profile are favourable i.e., where the grounds are practically level, there are no sharp curves not less than those specified for minimum design speed or steep grades (more than 5%) and where sight distances would be adequate for safe traffic operations. The location would not interfere with placement and proper functioning of highways signs, signals, lighting or other devices that affect traffic operation."

Exts.P3 and P5 have been issued overlooking the ground

reality and ignoring Clauses 4.2 and 4.3 of Appendix-I to

Ext.P1, contended the counsel for the petitioner.

4. The learned Standing Counsel for respondents 5

and 6 and counsel for respondents 7 to 9 vehemently WP(C) No.35733/2019

opposed the writ petition. According to them, the petitioner is

a competitor and hence his complaint is motivated. The site

at which the 9th respondent proposes to start the Petroleum

Retail Outlet, does not suffer from any infirmities. The writ

petition is therefore liable to be dismissed.

5. In the nature of the allegations made by the

petitioner and countered by respondents 6 to 9, it is clear that

the dispute revolves around questions of fact as to whether

the proposed site where the 9 th respondent to start Petroleum

Outlet violates Clauses 4.2 and 4.3 of Appendix-I to Ext.P1. In

the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the writ

petition can be disposed of directing the 5 th respondent to

consider Ext.P6 representation filed by the petitioner within a

time frame.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing

the 5th respondent to consider Ext.P6 representation filed by

the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon. The

petitioner shall serve a copy of the writ petition along with a

certified copy of the judgment on the 5 th respondent, for WP(C) No.35733/2019

compliance of this judgment. The 5th respondent shall pass

appropriate orders on Ext.P6 within a period of two months

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

aks/29.03.2021 WP(C) No.35733/2019

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE GUIDELINES DATED 24-7-2013.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEARING NO. B3-3086/19 DATED 9- 4-19 ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE BEARING NO. DCMPM/3422/2019-E1 DATED 30- 09-2019

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17-

12-2019 SENT BY PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL NOC BEARING NO. RW/TRI/RETAIL OUTLET/288/2019-20 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17-

12-2019 SENT BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPOSED PETROLEUM RETAIL OUTLET.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A3/1264/2019 DATED 1/7/19 SENT BY THE TOWN PLANNER, MALAPPURAM TO CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ncd