Kerala High Court
Martin Joseph vs The District Collector on 23 June, 2022
WP(C) No.20473/2022 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
Thursday, the 23rd day of June 2022 / 2nd Ashadha, 1944
WP(C) NO. 20473 OF 2022(H)
PETITIONERS:
1. MARTIN JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH JOHN, NECHIKATTU HOUSE, PALA P.O,
KOTTAYAM 686 575.
2. JOSEPH GIL, S/O. JOSEPH JOHN, NECHIKATTU HOUSE, PALA P.O, KOTTAYAM
686 575.
RESPONDENTS:
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM- 686 002.
2. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOTTAYAM, 682002
3. THE THASILDAR,MEENACHIL TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION,
PALA, KOTTAYAM- 686 575.
4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,TALUK OFFICE, MEENACHIL,MINI CIVIL STATION,
PALA, KOTTAYAM- 686 575.
5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, MEENACHIL, MEVADA P.O, PALA,
KOTTAYAM- 687573.
6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, PWD
ROADS DIVISION, KOTTAYAM 686 001.
7. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, PWD
ROADS DIVISION, HOSPITAL ROAD, ARUNAPURAM P.O, PALA- 686 574.
8. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALA P.O, KOTTAYAM- 686 575.
9. SRI. JOSE K. NECHIKATTU, AGED 46 YEARS S/O. JOHN JOSEPH, NECHIKATTU
HOUSE, PALA, KOTTAYAM 686 575.
10. SRI. VYSHAK SREEKUMAR, AGED 25 YEARS S/O. SREEKUMAR, DESARATHAM, TC
18/1972-8 MANGADU LANE, THIRUMALA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 006.
11. PALA MUNICIPALITY, MUNCIPAL COMPLEX, PALA 686 575, REPRESENTED BY
ITS SECRETARY.
12. THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. , REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY GENERAL
MANAGER (RETAIL SALES), TRIVANDRUM DIVISIONAL OFFICE, GROUND FLOOR,
PREMIER PARK, EANCHAKKAL BYE-PASS ROAD, VALLAKKADAVU P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 008.
Writ petition (civil) praying inter alia that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed along with the WP(C) the High Court be
pleased to stay the operation and further proceedings pursuant to Exhibit
P17, pending disposal of the Writ Petition (Civil).
This petition coming on for admission upon perusing the petition and
the affidavit filed in support of WP(C) and upon hearing the arguments of
M/s.K.JAJU BABU (SR.),M.U. VIJAYALAKSHMI, BRIJESH MOHAN, DIVYA C BALAN,
SACHIN RAMESH, PRASEEDHA PRADEEP, PRASEEDHA PRADEEP Advocates for the
petitioners, STANDING COUNSEL for R12 and SRI. TOM JOSE PADINJAREKKARA for
R9 (B/O), the court passed the following:
WP(C) No.20473/2022 2/5
WP(C).20473/22 1
V.G.ARUN, J.
-----------------------------------------------
W.P(C).No.20473 of 2022
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2022
ORDER
The primary contention urged by the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that Ext.P17 order is
more in the nature of an order under dictation than one issued
under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002. It is contended
that, even after taking note of the reports of the other
authorities, including the report of the Executive Engineer, Public
Works Department, which are to the effect that grant of NOC for
conducting the petroleum retail outlet at the proposed site may
lead to accidents because of the sharp curve of the road and
heavy traffic, the 2nd respondent proceeded to issue no objection
certificate referring to the observations in Exhibit P16 order in
COC.No.1186 of 2021. It is pointed out that while rejecting the
appeal filed against Exhibit P16, the Division Bench had granted
liberty to the petitioners to challenge the further decision taken
by the 2nd respondent in appropriate proceedings.
2. Learned Standing Counsel for the 12 th respondent, and
Adv.Tom Jose Padinjarekkara appearing for the 9 th respondent,
WP(C) No.20473/2022 3/5
laid emphasis on the series of orders passed in the contempt
proceedings to support the impugned order. It is submitted that
the orders were necessitated due to the failure of 2 nd respondent
to act in accordance with the directions in Exhibit P7 judgment
and the directions issued in the contempt proceedings. The
impugned order, which is passed in accordance with the
directions in Exhibit P17 and subsequent orders, is therefore
unassailable.
3. In my opinion, for considering the interim prayer, it is
not necessary to delve into the earlier proceedings, particularly
in the light of the observations in Exhibit P18 judgment. A
careful scrutiny of the order under challenge reveals that, in
spite of being fully aware of the adverse reports received from
the other authorities, the 2nd respondent proceeded to grant
NOC based on the observations in Exhibit P16 order. While
considering an application filed under Rule 144, the authority is
bound to take into account all relevant aspects, including the
recommendations/reports submitted by other authorities. The
2nd respondent having failed to do so, I am inclined to grant the
interim relief.
WP(C) No.20473/2022 4/5
There shall be an interim stay of operation of Ext.P17
order for a period of two weeks.
Post on 06.07.2022.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN, JUDGE
vgsisn
23-06-2022 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
WP(C) No.20473/2022 5/5
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20473/2022
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.08.2020 IN WRIT
PETITION (C) NO. 16318/2020 AND CONNECTED CASE OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.4.2022 IN CONT. CASE (C)
NO. 1186/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS VIDE NO. DCKTM/4219/2019-
H3 DATED 27.05.2022 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1.6.2022 IN W.A. NO.
736/2022 (FILING NO.) OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
