Kerala High Court
Naseef Meethale Pyngol vs The District Collector on 3 January, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 13TH POUSHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 43977 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
NASEEF MEETHALE PYNGOL
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O.KUNHALI P, KALLACHI - VADAKARA, VANIMEL
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673506
BY ADVS.
R.SUNIL KUMAR
A.SALINI LAL
NIKHITA SURESH
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, KANNUR, PIN - 670002
2 THE TAHASILDAR
TALUK OFFICE THALASSERY, PIN - 670101
3 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF (RURAL)
SP OFFICE KANNUR RURAL KANNUR-, PIN - 670567
4 THE SECRETARY
PINARAYI GRAMA PANCHAYAT PINARAYI, PIN - 670741
5 THE TERRITORY MANAGER(RETAIL)
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD CALICUT RETAIL
TERRITORY YMCA CROSS ROAD, CALICUT, PIN - 673001
SMT. VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP,
SMT. RAMOLA NAYANPALLY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 43977 OF 2023 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner says that even though he is entitled to have a "No
Objection Certificate" (NOC) issued by the 1 st respondent, so as to
enable him to commence a retail Petroleum Outlet, it has now been
refused solely because there is some untenable protest being engaged
in by the "local people". He, therefore, prays that the 1 st respondent be
directed to take up Ext.P2 application made by the 5 th respondent -
Territory Manager, for the afore said NOC, without heed to the 'protest
of the local people' and without insisting on him obtaining the consent
of the 'neighbours'. He relies upon Exts.P3 and P4 judgments of this
Court in substantiation.
2. Smt.Ramola Nayanpally- learned Standing Counsel appearing
for the 5th respondent, affirmed that her client has made Ext.P2
application; and argued that it is eminently deserving of being allowed,
in view of the declarations of law by this Court in Exts.P3 and P4
judgments.
3. Smt.Vidya Kuriakose - learned Government Pleader, in
response to the afore submissions of the petitioner - as made by his
learned counsel, Smt.Nikhita Suresh - submitted that if the petitioner
only requires Ext.P2 application to be considered by the 1 st respondent
as per law, there is no legal impediment in doing so; but prayed that
this Court may not make any affirmative declarations on his
entitlement to any relief and leave it to be decided by the competent
Authority, in terms of law.
4. It is obvious that, if this Court is to direct the 1 st respondent to
take action on Ext.P2, it will have to be done as per law and after
hearing all necessary parties, as may be imperative, under the
statutory scheme. This Court cannot dictate to the 1 st respondent as to
the manner in which it is to be done.
In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and direct
the 1st respondent to take up Ext.P2 application preferred by the 5th
respondent and dispose of the same, after hearing the petitioner and
the 5th respondent, as also any other person who may be interested of
being heard in law, specifically adverting to Exts.P3 and P4 judgments;
thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon,
as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
MC/3.1
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 43977/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE OFFER LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 30/11/23
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR GETTING
NOC TO THE OUTLET AWARDED TO THE PETITIONER
DATED 1/12/2023
Exhibit P3 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) NO:
9081/2017 DATED 30/5/2017
Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A NO: 1463/21
DATED 9/11/2021
