CHOORAPPILAN JAMEELA v. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM, COLLECTORATE, MALAPPURAM P.O., PIN - 676505 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE, MALAPPURAM P.O., PIN - 676505 THE ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT OFFICE, UP-HILL, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676506 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, TAGORE ROAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, KARUVELIPADY, THOPPUPADY P.O., KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682005 MR.P.SHAMSEER, S/O. MOHAMMED, PADAVANNA HOUSE, KOVILAKAM ROAD, MANJERI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676121 BY ADVS. Martin Jose P P.PRIJITH(K/233/2005) THOMAS P.KURUVILLA(K/420-B/2005) R.GITHESH(K/630/2002) AJAY BEN JOSE(K/729/2012) MANJUNATH MENON(K/000474/2015) SACHIN JACOB AMBAT(K/734/2016) ANNA LINDA EDEN(K/1201/2020) HARIKRISHNAN S.(K/497/2019) S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)(S-571) WP(C) NO. 824 OF 2024 2 OTHER PRESENT: SRI.SUNIL K.KURIAKOSE, GP, SMT. RAMOLA NAYANAPALLY, FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

23.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 824 OF 2024 3 JUDGMENT The petitioner says that she is the owner of a property, which has been leased over to the 5th respondent for the purpose of establishing and operating a Petrol Dispensing Station, but hat, without any consent and clearance being obtained under the statutory scheme, the 5th respondent has now expanded his business by including a CNG station; she thus being constrained to approach the 1st respondent - District Collector through Ext.P5 representation. She, therefore, prays that the said Authority be directed to take up Ext.P5 and dispose it of, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. Sri.Martin Jose P. - learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent, submitted that the afore assertions of the petitioner are completely untrue and that she is victimizing his client only because there are some civil disputes pending between them. He argued that his client is operating the fuel dispensing station strictly in terms of the consents obtained, and as per the directions of the 4th respondent – Indian Oil Corporation, from whom he has obtained licence; and hence that this writ petition is an abuse of process and mischievous. He, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

3. Interestingly, Smt.Ramola Nayanpally – learned counsel for the 4th respondent, submitted that, normally, no person like the 5th WP(C) NO. 824 OF 2024 4 respondent will be allowed to run a dispensing unit without having obtained all necessary clearances and licences from the statutory Authorities. She submitted that her client keeps close vigil on every activity in every such station; and therefore, that the allegation of the petitioner do not appear to be true at all.

4. Learned Government Pleader – Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, submitted that, though the 1st respondent can verify, based on Ext.P5 representation of the petitioner, whether the 5th respondent is acting as per law, their internecine disputes are not something into which he can enter. He explained that even the pleadings on record would indicate that the parties have serious civil disputes and that the petitioner appears to be using the forum of this writ petition for the purpose of ventilating the same, which is not permissible.

5. I must say that there is force in the afore submissions of Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose because, the jurisdiction of the District Collector - either in his capacity as a District Magistrate or the head of the Disaster Management Authority - would be, at the best, to verify whether the petrol dispensing station is being operated in terms of all the relevant licence and consents. Beyond that, he would obtain no jurisdiction normally.

6. As I have already seen above, it is the specific contention of the WP(C) NO. 824 OF 2024 5 petitioner that the 5th respondent is operating a CNG dispensing unit within the petrol station, without authority and consents. This certainly, is a matter that the District Collector can cause to be investigated, after hearing the parties, including the 4th respondent – Indian Oil Corporation. This is because, if the 5th respondent is operating the Unit strictly in terms of law and based on all consents, then the competence of the District Collector any further would stand barricaded. In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition, to the limited extent of directing the 1st respondent – District Collector to take up Ext.P5 representation of the petitioner and dispose of the same after hearing her, the 5th respondent and the competent Official of the 4th respondent; thus culminating in appropriate order and necessary action, specifically with respect to whether the 5th respondent is operating the fuel dispensing station and the allied activities therein, in terms of law and on the strength of all relevant consents. For this purpose the 1st respondent will be at liberty to cause necessary inspections either personally or through the 2nd respondent or such other competent Authority. I reiteratingly clarify that, beyond this, the District Collector is not expected to enter into the internecine disputes between the parties, or to make any assessment of the same. WP(C) NO. 824 OF 2024 6 The afore exercise shall be completed 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/23.1 WP(C) NO. 824 OF 2024 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 824/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 Exhibit P4 Exhibit P5 Exhibit P6 Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY VAZHIKADAVU VILLAGE OFFICE DATED 25.04.2023 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VAZHIKADAVU GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 18.09.2019 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 21.01.2004 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C).NO.27291/2009 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 04.12.2009 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 20.11.2023 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE ISSUED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 30.12.2023 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 30.12.2023