Kerala High Court
Madhu Divakaran vs The Divisional Retail Sales Head on 6 September, 2024
Author: V.G.Arun
Bench: V.G.Arun
2024:KER:67849
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 15TH BHADRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 23689 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
MADHU DIVAKARAN, AGED 58 YEARS,
S/O DIVAKARAN, MEENATHETHIL HOUSE - PERIGILPPURAM KARA,
ENNACKADU CHENGANNUR,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 689121
BY ADVS.
R.SUNIL KUMAR
A.SALINI LAL
ARUN KRISHNA
JINU P. BINU
RESPONDENT:
THE DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES HEAD
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD,
COCHIN DIVISIONAL OFFICE - PANAMPILLY AVENUE,
PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI, PIN - 682036
BY ADVS.
NITHIN GEORGE
RITHU JOSE
SRI. GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:67849
WP(C) NO. 23689 OF 2024
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner applied for allotment of a Petroleum
Retail Outlet at the location from Eastern Factory, Adimali to
Valara water falls and National Highway 85 in Idukki District.
Even though petitioner's application was considered, on
inspection, the Land Evaluation Committee found a small
passage of land in between the National Highway and the land
offered by the petitioner. Therefore, the Land Evaluation
Committee did not recommend allotment of retail outlet to the
petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner's application for
allotment was rejected. Hence, this writ petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
the factual finding by the Land Evaluation Committee is
incorrect. In support of this contention, reference is made to
Ext.P6 issued by the Village Officer. It is submitted that the
2024:KER:67849
WP(C) NO. 23689 OF 2024
survey sketch appended to the Village Officer's report would
show that the offered land abuts the National Highway and
there is no other land in between.
3. The learned counsel for the Oil Marketing Company
submitted that the factual finding of the Land Evaluation
Committee cannot be disputed, particularly in the light of the
Ext.R1 letter issued by the petitioner, admitting that there is
some non-patta land in between the offered property and the
National Highway.
4. The dispute is centered on the question whether the
land offered by the petitioner is lying contiguous to the National
Highway or there is some other property in between. The said
factual dispute cannot be resolved in a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At the same time,
since the petitioner has produced certain documents to support
his claim, it is only appropriate for the respondent have a re-
look at the petitioner's application.
2024:KER:67849
WP(C) NO. 23689 OF 2024
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, directing
the respondent to re-consider Ext.P1 application submitted by
the petitioner, adverting the additional documents produced by
the petitioner. For effectuating consideration of the application,
the petitioner shall produce a copy of this writ petition along
with certified copy of the judgment. The decision, as directed
above, shall be taken within two months.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE
msp
2024:KER:67849
WP(C) NO. 23689 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23689/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER DATED 23/9/2023
Exhibit P2 COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DATED 23/9/23
Exhibit P3 COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION DATED 14/5/24
Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER
TO THE RESPONDENT DATED 15/5/24
Exhibit P5 COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
DATED 7/6/24
Exhibit P6 COPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED BY THE TAHSILDAR
DATED 19/6/24
Exhibit P7 COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED
15/12/2023
Exhibit P8 COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 10/5/23
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R1 - A COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE
REPRESENTATION BY PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT.
THE PETIIONER
EXHIBIT R2 - ROW TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF RIGHT OF WAY
DETAILS ISSUED BY THE NHAI
EXHIBIT R3 - LEC TRUE COPY OF THE LAND EVALUATION BY LEC
EXHIBIT R4 - TRUE COPY OF THE SPEAKING ORDER ISSUED BY THE
SPEAKING ORDER RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
