Ratheesh Sreedharan Puthettu vs. The District Collector, Kottayam
Original PDF →WP(C) NO. 6925 OF 2021 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI THUR AY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 6925 OF 2021 PETITIONER: RATHEESH SREEDHARAN PUTHETTU PUTHETTU TRANSPORTS, XVIII/460, PUTHETTU BUILDING, 101 JUNCTION, PEROOR P.O., ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS. PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU SMT.SAJITHA GEORGE RESPONDENTS: 1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM-686 002. 2 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOTTAYAM, OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM-686 002. 3 ETTUMANOOR MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM-686 631. 4 NAYANA ENERGY LIMITED, NO.3, 5TH FLOOR, MAYFLOWER VALENCIA, 336/2, AVINASHI ROAD, NAVA INDIA, COIMBATORE-641 004, TAMIL NADU. BY ADV SHRI.SIBY CHENAPPADY, SC, ETTUMANOOR MUNICIPALITY SRI. ANEESH JAMES, SC. SMT. RASHMI. K. M, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 6925 OF 2021 2 WP(C)No.6925 of 2021 (Dated this the 15th day of July, 2021) JUDGMENT Heard Sri Philip J. Vettickattu on behalf of the petitioner, Smt. Rashmi K.M., Government pleader, on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Aneesh James, Standing counsel for the 3rd respondent Municipality. Even though notice was served on the 4th respondent, the 4th respondent has not chosen to enter appearance.
The writ petition has been filed praying to quash Exhibit P9 whereby, the petitioner's request for a No Objection Certificate for installation of customer pump facility (20KL capacity tank) with one fuel dispensing pump, exclusively for refilling the petitioner's Trucks which are being used for his transporting business, has been rejected. The case of the petitioner is that he owns 8 National Permit trucks as evidenced by Exhibit P1, that Exhibit P2 will show he has taken GST registration and that Exhibit P3 would show he has trade license issued by the 3rd respondent Municipality. For the purpose of facilitating easy supply of diesel to his trucks, the petitioner approached the petroleum companies for establishing a customer pump facility, for supply of
WP(C) NO. 6925 OF 2021 3 high-speed diesel exclusively for own vehicles. The pump was proposed to be established in his open parking yard.
The petitioner submitted Exhibit P5 application to the 1st respondent requesting for a no objection Certificate. The 2nd respondent, who is authorised to consider such requests for No Objection Certificate, rejected the request of the petitioner, by Exhibit P9 order. Exhibit P9 order shows that the Tahsildar, Kottayam, The District Police Head, Kottayam, and the Regional Fire Officer, Fire and Rescue Services, Kottayam, had submitted reports recommending the grant of No Objection Certificate. It appears that the Secretary of the 3rd respondent Muncipality had submitted a report pointing out that there is shortage in the width of the road in certain points, near the site where the tank is to be located. On the basis of the above objection of the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent has rejected the request made by the petitioner.
The contention of the petitioner is that the decision was taken by the 2nd respondent without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is contended that Rule 149 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, requires the District authority to record in writing, the reasons for such refusal and that the applicant should be
WP(C) NO. 6925 OF 2021 4 given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before refusing a request for No Objection Certificate. I find considerable force in the contention raised by the petitioner. Rule149 of the Petroleum Rules 2002 reads thus: "149. Refusal of no-objection certificate. – A district authority refusing to grant a no objection certificate under rule 144 shall record, in writing, the reasons for such refusal and shall furnish to the applicant a copy of such order: Provided that, before refusing to grant a no-objection certificate, the applicant shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard."
It can be seen from the above, that if the District authority is refusing to grant a No Objection Certificate, necessarily the applicant has to be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. A reading of Exhibit P9 would show that no such opportunity was afforded to the applicant before rejecting the request for the No Objection Certificate. The order only cites the reports of the various authorities and thereafter in the operating portion, rejects the request on the basis of the report of the 3rd respondent. The order Exhibit P9 does not meet the requirements of law and is liable to be set aside. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is allowed. Exhibit P9 order issued by the 2nd respondent is set aside. The 2nd respondent shall reconsider the application for grant of No Objection Certificate
WP(C) NO. 6925 OF 2021 5 and take a decision after hearing the petitioner. Fresh orders in this regard shall be issued within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. T.R.RAVI, JUDGE dsn
WP(C) NO. 6925 OF 2021 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6925/2021 PETITIONER ANNEXURE EXHIBIT P1OF RELEVANT PAGES OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATES OF THE PETITIONER'S VEHICLES. EXHIBIT P2OF GST REGISTRATION CERTIFICATES WITH RESPECT TO THE CONCERN OF THE PETITIONER DATED 09.08.2017. EXHIBIT P3OF TRADE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE MUNICIPALITY DATED 23.06.2020. EXHIBIT P4OF OFFER LETTER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 03.09.2020. EXHIBIT P5OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR NOC DATED 09.09.2020. EXHIBIT P6OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE FIRE AND RESCUE DATED 11.11.2020. EXHIBIT P7OF REPORT OF THE TALUK OFFICE, KOTTAYAM DATED 09.11.2020. EXHIBIT P8OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOTTAYAM DATED 08.01.2021. EXHIBIT P9OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF DISTRICT MAGISTRATE DATED 24.02.2021. EXHIBIT P10OF REPORT DATED 23.01.2021 OF THE MUNICIPALITY, OBTAINED UNDER THE RTI ACT.
Reproduced from the public record of the Kerala High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.