The petitioner approached this Court with the following reliefs: “(i). A writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction quashing Ext.P4 to Ext.7.
(ii). A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to ensure that the permission if any granted to the the 9th respondent for construction is in compliance with Gas Cylinder Rules 2003 framed under Section 18 of the Explosives Act 1884 and also in accordance with the license requirements of Rules 50,51 and 54 and the prescription in form F framed there under and the Petroleum Act.
(iii). An order of stay of commissioning of the Liquefied Petroleum Godown by the 9th respondent in the building constructed and permitted by the permit No.B-13/13-14 issued by the Chemmnad Grama Panchayath pending disposal of the writ petition.”
2. The 9th respondent was granted permission by the 3rd respondent-Petroleum Corporation to establish LPG godown near to the residential property of the petitioner. The 9th respondent, in fact, approached this Court seeking police protection for the construction of the said godown. Ext.P10 is the judgment. It was observed by the Division Bench that the 9th respondent is in possession of all the valid permits and licenses and, therefore, party respondents cannot obstruct the construction of LPG godown. However, it is further observed that the party respondents are free to challenge the same before the appropriate authorities or a court of law.
3. The petitioner's case is that for installation of the godown, the 9th respondent is having lease deed in respect of land comprised in re-survey Nos.67/2C, 66/9B and 65/2A2 of Chemmanad village in Kasaragod Taluk. However, it is submitted that the 9th respondent is having only registered lease deed in respect of two survey Nos.66/9B and 65/2A2 and he has no right on the land comprising in re-survey No.67/2C. The petitioner's further case is that the 9th respondent obtained permission from the Petroleum Corporation suppressing the material fact that he does not have any right on the land in Survey No.67/2C.
4. The 9th respondent submitted that he has all the permits.
It is further submitted that he is eligible as per the conditions of guidelines for selection of LPG distributors. His further case is that he has not violated any of the regulations and he had only extended the godown area with permission of the Petroleum Corporation.
5. The petitioner's prayer is to direct the respondents to ensure that the permission granted to the 9th respondent for construction is in terms of the Gas Cylinder Rules 2003. If the 9th respondent has obtained permission in violation of the above Rules, the petitioner has to point out the same to the Petroleum Corporation. In such a situation, the Petroleum Corporation is bound to consider such objection. The nature of the dispute espoused in this case is essentially related to the identity of the property whether the property in survey No.67/2C forms part of the lease deed or not. This dispute cannot be decided under Article 226 of the Constitution. Whether the 9th respondent is having any right over the entire property or not has to be considered and decided by the Petroleum Corporation and whether any violation has been taken place or not is also needed to be adverted to by the Petroleum Corporation. Therefore, the petitioner shall raise his objection before the 3rd respondent- Petroleum Corporation Ltd. within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Thereafter, after hearing the petitioner and the 9th respondent, appropriate decision shall be taken by the 3rd respondent within a further period of six weeks from the date of receipt of objections from the petitioner.
6. In view of the above directions, the 9th respondent is allowed to commission the Liquefied Petroleum Godown However, this will be subject to any decision to be taken by the Petroleum Corporation .
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, Judge.
dpk /True copy/ PS to Judge.