Madras High Court
A.Malarvizhi vs The District Collector on 23 June, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.1190 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.06.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.1190 of 2021
and C.M.P.(MD) Nos.5060 and 5062 of 2021
A.Malarvizhi ... Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Dindigul District, Dindigul.
2.The Territory Manager (Retail),
Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
Madurai Retail Territory,
37, Tirupparankundram Road,
Pasumalai, Madurai – 625 004.
3.The Joint Chief Controller of Explosives,
140, Rukmani Lakshmipathi Marshalls Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
4.The Chief Educational Officer,
Palani Road, Vanivilasmedu,
Dindigul District, Dindigul.
5.Akhilesh ... Respondents/Respondents
Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order
passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.7057 of 2021, dated 29.03.2021.
For Appellant : Mr.V.R.Venkatesan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
W.A.(MD)No.1190 of 2021
For Respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4 : Mr.R.Baskaran
Standing Counsel for Government
For Respondent No.2 : Mr.S.Nadesh Raja
*****
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)
Heard Mr.V.R.Venkatesan, learned counsel for the appellant,
Mr.R.Baskaran, learned Standing Counsel for Government, appearing for
respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 and Mr.S.Nadesh Raja, learned Standing Counsel,
appearing for the second respondent.
2.The appellant filed the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No.7057 of 2021,
praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to forbear the respondent Nos.1 to
4 from proceeding with the installation work of petrol bunk by the fifth
respondent in Survey No.132/3D2A1 of Markkampatti Village, Oddanchatram
Taluk, Dindigul District as the same is within the prohibited distance of the
Government High School, Markkampatti Village. The Writ Petition was
dismissed on the ground that the appellant is a rival trader, who is also running
a petrol bunk and a dealer of the Indian Oil Corporation. Learned Writ Court
has held that such motivated litigation cannot be encouraged and while
dismissing the Writ Petition, a cost of Rs.5,000/- was also directed to be paid.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1190 of 2021
3.After hearing the elaborate arguments of the learned counsel for the
parties, we find that the representation given by the appellant to the second
respondent has not been considered and no reply was given to the petitioner.
When the appellant approached the Public Information Officer under the Right
to Information Act, 2005, seeking details of the 'No Objection Certificate'
granted to the fifth respondent, a reply was sent on 25.02.2021, stating that the
information appears to be that of a third party and therefore, it is a privileged
information and cannot be divulged. Therefore, the appellant is left with no
option except to file the Writ Petition.
4.It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that his
petroleum retail outlet is situated 2 kms from the outlet, which is in the process
of being set up by the fifth respondent and the litigation is not motivated
litigation, but bearing in mind the safety of the children.
5.Mr.S.Nadesh Raja, learned Standing Counsel for the second
respondent Petroleum Corporation submitted that the guidelines issued by the
Central Government and Pollution Control board have been strictly adhered to
and there is no violation of the distance rule and the fifth respondent's retail
outlet is not within the prohibited distance.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1190 of 2021
6.Had the second respondent replied to the appellant's representation
and has enclosed a copy of the 'No Objection Certificate', it is well open to the
appellant to question the same, but since no reply was given, the appellant was
left with no option except to approach this Court with the Writ Petition with a
prayer to issue a Writ of Mandamus.
7.Though the appellant may say that his retail outlet is situated 2 kms.
from the outlet of the second respondent, it can always be viewed as a personal
motive. However, in the matter, the safety of the children is concerned.
Therefore, the second respondent has to disclose the distance criteria, which
was adopted and has to establish how the petroleum retail outlet of the fifth
respondent is not within the prohibited distance.
8.For the above reason, we partly allow the Writ Appeal by excluding
the direction to pay cost and issuing a direction to the second respondent to
send a suitable reply to the appellant's representation dated 12.03.2021,
enclosing all relevant documents including the copy of the 'No Objection
Certificate' given by the second respondent Corporation for establishing a
petroleum retail outlet by the fifth respondent as dealer a within one week from
the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The appellant has also raised another
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1190 of 2021
objection stating that there is a transformer situated within the prohibited
distance. This issue also be appropriately dealt with in the reply to be given by
the second respondent in terms of the above direction. No costs. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Index :Yes/No [T.S.S., J.] [S.A.I., J.]
Internet :Yes/No 23.06.2021
sj
Note: (i) In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy
of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be
the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
(ii) Issue copy on 28.06.2021
To
1.The District Collector,
Dindigul District, Dindigul.
2.The Joint Chief Controller of Explosives,
140, Rukmani Lakshmipathi Marshalls Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Palani Road, Vanivilasmedu,
Dindigul District, Dindigul.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1190 of 2021
T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
sj
W.A.(MD)No.1190 of 2021
23.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
