ABHILASH P.P v. DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES

2. Sri.K.B.Ganesh – learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently asserted that Ext.P18 is unfair, particularly when the 'PESO' itself cleared his client's construction through Ext.P1, which has been confirmed by this Court in Ext.P10 judgment; and hence prayed that the same be set aside. He added that, on account of the afore unnecessary clarifications sought, his client has been put to grave prejudice.

3. Smt.Ramola Nayanpally – learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent – Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL), conceded that the petitioner is proposing to set up the LPG godown under a licence issued by her client and that the 'PESO' had, in fact, cleared the same, as evident from Ext.P1 in the past. She also affirmed that, Ext.P10 judgment covers the factual scenario; and thus prayed that no further clarifications be directed to be sought W.P.(C).No. 32125 of 2023 : 4 : by the 'PESO' in this regard.

4. However, the learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent, submitted that, as evident from Ext.P18, it is the petitioner himself who has shown the existence of an alleged temporary shed – which he asserted to be not temporary, but a permanent one – in the property of his client – Temple; and added that this has been used as an “Oottupura” (dining area for devotees). He added that, therefore, in such circumstances, and since the distance between the proposed Unit and the “Oottupura” is less than 7 metres, the 'PESO' was without error in having sought for clarifications, as mentioned in Ext.P18. He, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

5. When I consider and evaluate the afore rival submissions of the parties, it is evident that the 'PESO' has not rejected any application of the petitioner as of now. They have only asked him to offer certain clarifications, particularly because he, himself, has mentioned and shown in his revised plan that there is a temporary construction in the property of the 4th respondent, which, according to him, is beyond the distance of 7 meters.

6. As is discernible from Ext.P18, the 'PESO' has only asked the petitioner to offer certain clarifications; but am of the view that it was incorrect on their part to have left the matter there, W.P.(C).No. 32125 of 2023 : 5 : particularly when they say that they were only required to find out the purposes for which the said temporary construction has been put to use by the Temple. This is more so in the background of the assertion of the petitioner, that the construction in question is an unauthorised one, which had not been permitted by the Panchayat, and that it has been put up in the recent past, after he had obtained Ext.P1 clearance from the 'PESO' earlier.

7. Obviously, therefore, the disputation between the parties is in the factual realm, particularly as to the manner in which the alleged temporary shed is being put to use and the period when it was constructed by the 4th respondent.

8. Indubitably, therefore, it is for the 'PESO' itself to evaluate these aspects, for which, the parties will have to be heard, after being given the opportunity of establishing their rival positions, through germane and relevant inputs. In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition to the limited extent of directing the competent Authority of the 'PESO' to immediately hear the petitioner, 3rd respondent – IOCL, as also the 4th respondent, and take a decision on the clarifications that have been sought for in Ext.P18, particularly as to the manner of use of the shed allegedly in the property of the 4th respondent and the period when it had been constructed by them in the past. W.P.(C).No. 32125 of 2023 : 6 : The 'PESO' will also be at liberty to obtain necessary inputs from the Local Self Government Institutions or such other competent Authorities, particularly with respect to the construction in question, as also the distance between it and the proposed Unit of the petitioner. A final decision pursuant to the afore shall be taken by the 'PESO', 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 W.P.(C).No. 32125 of 2023 : 7 : APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32125/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 Exhibit P4 Exhibit P5 Exhibit P6 Exhibit P7 Exhibit P8 Exhibit P9 Exhibit P10 Exhibit P11 Exhibit P12 Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF PRIOR APPROVAL NO. A/G/SE/KL/06/229 (G50289) ISSUED BY THE 1 ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER ON 18.07.2018 ALONG WITH TYPED COPY TRUE COPY OF OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY ADAT GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO THE PETITIONER ON 10.01.2023 TRUE COPY OF OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY ADAT GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO THE PETITIONER ON 11.01.2023 TRUE COPY OF NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY ADAT GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO THE PETITIONER ON 17.05.2023 TRUE COPY OF NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY FIRE AND RESCUE DEPARTMENT ON 30.08.2022 TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF REGISTRATION ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD TO THE PETITIONER ON 03.09.2022 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 24.04.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2 ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 23.05.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2 ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 14.06.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1 ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NOS. 11186 AND 19529/2020 DATED 27.07.2023 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. C6-8549/2019 OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 11.05.2020 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 10.08.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2 ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 17.08.2023 BASED ON WHICH THE PETITIONER SUBMITTED HIS ONLINE APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVAL BEFORE THE 1 ST RESPONDENT W.P.(C).No. 32125 of 2023 : 8 : Exhibit P14 Exhibit P15 Exhibit P16 Exhibit P17 Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 21.08.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2 ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO ADAT GRAMA PANCHAYATH UNDER RTI ACT ON 25.08.2023 TRUE COPY OF REPLY OF THE PANCHAYATH DATED 14.09.2023 TO EXT P15 TRUE COPY OF REVISED PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2 ND RESPONDENT ON 22.08.2023 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. NA(G120916) DATED 25.08.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2 ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENT ANNEXURES Annexure R1(a) Annexure R1(b) Annexure R1(c) Annexure R1(d) Annexure R1(e) Annexure R1(f) Annexure R1(g) Annexure R1(h) Exhibit R4 1 Exhibit R4 2 TRUE COPY OF THE PRIOR APPROVAL NO. A/G/SE/KL/06/229(G50289) DATED 18/07/2018 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. A/G/SE/KL/06/229 (GS 50289) DATED 31.03.2023 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. A/G/SE/KL/06/229 (GS 50289) DATED 24.04.2023 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION NO.A/G/SE/KL/06/229 (GS 50289) DATED 23.05.2023 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A/G/SE/KL/06/229 (GS 50289) DATED 29.05.2023 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL LETTER NO. NO.A/G/SE/KL/06/229 (GS 50289) DATED 10.08.2023 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.NA(G120916) DATED 21.08.2023 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. NA (G120916) DATED 25.08.2023 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THIS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT NO. 4 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THIS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT NO. 4 DATED 02/08/2019 TRUE COPY OF THE MASS REPRESENTATION FILED BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF ADAT GRAMA PANACHAYAT BY 450 LOCAL INHABITANTS DATED 6/08/2019 W.P.(C).No. 32125 of 2023 : 9 : Exhibit R4 3 THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE COMPOUND WALL AND PROPOSED LPG GODOWN