IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 22635 of 2006(S)
1. M. SANJEEVAN, S/O. T. NARAYANAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M/S. DEVI AGENCIES, BPCL DEALER
... Respondent
2. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.,
3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
4. THE REGIONAL OFFICER (NORTH)
5. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY
6. THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER EXPLOSIVES,
7. THE DISTRICT AUTHORITY (PETROLEUM RULES)
8. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
9. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
10. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER
For Petitioner :SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS
For Respondent :SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.V.K.BALI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.RAMACHANDRAN
Dated :23/01/2007
O R D E R
(V.K.BALI, C.J & M.RAMACHANDRAN, J)
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.22635 of 2006-S
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2007
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran, J:
M/s.Devi Agencies had obtained a letter of intent from
Bharat Petroleum Corporation for starting a Fuel Outlet at
Cheruvathur Village, in properties situated in R.S.421/2A1,
adjoining National Highway-17. Installation work
apparently is found as delayed, because of the order of the
District Collector, when he had been informed that the
Assistant Executive Engineer, National highways had
instructed concerned persons to relocate the proposed
bunk. But, such orders were stayed, and it is evident that
the outlet has become functional.
2. As could be gatherable from the number of
petitions filed, the petitioner was attempting to prevent it
from becoming operational. It could be seen that three writ
petitions had been filed earlier. Objections that had been
raised by the petitioner have been directed to be looked into
[WPC No.22635 of 2006] -2-
and the petitioner was aggrieved in that due attention to the
details were not gone into and the fuel station is functioning
in violation of the norms that are binding on all. He claims to
be a social activist “involved in crusade against the corrupt
practices”.
3. The principal contention highlighted was that in
order to set up a fuel station adjacent to National Highways,
the requirement of minimum distance prescribed by the
relevant norms from an intersection was not taken into
consideration. This was likely to pose danger to all. It was a
case where permission could not have been granted. Rightly,
the National Highway authorities had not given sanction or
permission for the installation. No Objection Certificates
were not procured in time and the Fuel Outlet by its location
causes threat to the motorists as also pedestrians because of
the proximity to the intersection.
4. It may not be necessary, at this juncture, to go
into further details, as technical appraisal was required at all
times. Presently, the Standing Counsel for the Bharat
Petroleum Corporation had made available for our perusal a
communication issued by the Executive Engineer, Ministry of
[WPC No.22635 of 2006] -3-
Shipping, Road Transport and Highways, dated 04-01-2007,
which indicates that No Objection Certificate in respect of
the present outlet run by the first respondent has come. After
examining the Licence Deed and other related papers, the
Ministry of Transport has found no objectionable features in
erecting the outlet. Licence deed and lay out plan has been
countersigned. Of course, the requisite fee is to be remitted
as a precondition for No Objection Certificate, but it has been
made clear by the authority concerned that the situation of
the outlet is not objectionable.
5. In the aforesaid circumstances, being a technical
matter, and since the outlet has become functional, no further
probe is necessary. The petitioner had brought to the
attention of the court the lapses of authorities, and as a
consequence, follow up steps have been taken to examine the
matter thoroughly. In addition thereto, we do not think it is
necessary to go into any other details. The letter dated 04-01-
2007, referred to earlier, will form part of the records. The lay
out plans require strictly to be followed.
[WPC No.22635 of 2006] -4-
The writ petition will stand closed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
V.K.BALI
(CHIEF JUSTICE)
Sd/-
M.RAMACHANDRAN
(JUDGE)
mks/
– True Copy –