Seena Mychael vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 12556 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
         WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2021 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1943
                          WP(C) NO. 11394 OF 2021
PETITIONER :-

             SEENA MYCHAEL, AGED 42 YEARS
0




             W/O.SIBY SEBASTIAN, KULATHINAL HOUSE,
             MYLLELLAMPARA P.O., PUTHUPPADI, CALICUT.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR (K/712/1995)-23820
             SMT.A.SALINI LAL


RESPONDENTS :-

     1       THE STATE OF KERALA
             REP.BY THE ADDL.CHIEF SECRETARY,
             KERALA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

     2       KERALA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
             REP. BY THE PROJECT DIRECTOR,
             KERALA STATE TRANSPORT PROJECT, JAGAD BUILDINGS,
             KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003.

     3       THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
             PWD ROADS DIVISION, KOZHIKODE-673002.

     4       THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
             KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, KOZHIKODE-673020.

     5       BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.,
             REP. BY ITS CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER,
             CALICUT TERRITORY OFFICE, 3RD FLOOR, CEEKEY TOWERS,
             VANDIPETTA, KANNUR ROAD,
             NADAKKAVU WEST, CALICUT-673011.

             R5 BY ADV. SRI.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
             BY SMT.PRINCY XAVIER, GP


THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.05.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 11394 OF 2021
                                  -: 2 :-

                              JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking directions to the 4 th respondent

to issue a No Objection Certificate to the 5 th respondent in terms of

Ext.P2 application without insisting on the compliance with the IRC

Norms.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned

Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel appearing for the

5th respondent, BPCL.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

the 3rd respondent has forwarded Ext.P3 report stating that the IRC

12-2016 norms have not been complied with and that NOC, therefore,

cannot be granted. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the judgments of this Court cover the issue and that

the insistence on compliance with the IRC norms is totally

unwarranted on an issuance of an NOC for starting a retail petroleum

outlet. The learned counsel also places reliance on Ext.P4 judgment,

where, the 4th respondent has been directed to consider the

application without insisting on the IRC/MORTH guidelines. WP(C) NO. 11394 OF 2021

4. Having heard on parties and in view of Ext.P4 judgment,

there will be a direction to the 4 th respondent to take up, consider and

pass orders on Ext.P2 application, in accordance with law, without

insisting on compliance of the IRC/MORTH guidelines, within 30 days

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

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN, JUDGE

Jvt/26.5.2021 WP(C) NO. 11394 OF 2021

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :-

EXT.P1 :- COPY OF THE OFFER LETTER ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 09/03/19.

EXT.P2 :- COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT FOR GETTING NOC TO THE OUTLET AWARDED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 07/03/2019.

EXT.P3 :- COPY OF THE REJECTION LETTER ISSUED BY THE PWD DATED 04/08/20 AND TRANSLATION.

EXT.P4 :- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)No.5634/2021 DATED 4/3/2021.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :- NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P. A. TO JUDGE