The subject matter of these writ petitions is a proposed petroleum outlet and the issues raised, are intricately connected. Hence these matters are consolidated and heard. Therefore, this common judgment.

2. The 2nd petitioner in WP(C).No.8090 of 2006 and in WP.(C).No.5956 of 2006 is the managing partner of the 1st petitioner in WP (C) No.8090 of 2006, a firm, which is a franchisee of the 1st petitioner in WP (C) No.5956 of 2006, an authorised petroleum marketer, hereinafter referred to as “Reliance”. He is one among the co-owners of the land on which the petroleum outlet is proposed.

3. By Ext.P4 in WP (C) No.5956 of 2006, the District Collector granted permission, hereinafter, “KLU Permission”, for short, to the franchisee’s managing partner and his co-owners, under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1987, hereinafter, the “KLU Order”, for short, to convert the wet lands to provide the site for the proposed petroleum outlet. The Land Revenue Commissioner, hereinafter, the “Commissioner”, for short, entertained an appeal filed by respondents 4 & 5 and others, who are stated to be neighbours, against that order and passed Ext.P6 order staying the operation of the KLU Permission. WP (C) No.5956 of 2006 is filed by Reliance and the franchisee’s managing partner (one of the co-owners of the land) challenging Ext.P6 order of the Commissioner.

4. WP (C) No.7064 of 2006 is filed by a neighbour challenging Exts.P5 & P6 therein, the decision of the Chief Town Planner approving the layout of the petroleum outlet and that of the Government granting zonal exemption from the Town Planning Scheme.

5. WP (C) No.7148 of 2006 is filed by respondents 4 & 5 in WP (C) No.5956 of 2006 seeking to quash the aforesaid Government Order granting zonal exemption.

6. After this court admitted WP (C) No.5956 of 2006 on 28.02.2006, the 5th respondent therein moved an appeal dated 06.03.2006 before the Commissioner against the decision of the Additional District Magistrate – hereinafter, the “ADM” – granting No Objection Certificate (hereinafter, “NOC”, for short) under the Petroleum Rules. The Commissioner stayed that decision of the ADM and ordered status quo to be maintained. WP (C) No.8090 of 2006 is filed by the franchisee and its managing partner challenging that order of the Commissioner, which is Ext.P8 in that case. An order prohibiting the Commissioner from proceeding with that appeal is also sought for.

7. WP (C) No.9811 of 2006 is filed by another neighbour challenging Ext.P3 NOC granted by the ADM and against which the Commissioner entertained an appeal, as stated above. He also seeks a direction to the Controller of Explosives not to grant licence to Reliance and the franchisee under the Petroleum Rules, for the proposed outlet.

8. When these matters, except the last among them, where being heard, it was noticed that the power of the Commissioner to sit in appeal over the decision of the ADM under the Petroleum Rules is an issue arising for decision and therefore, to facilitate expediency, it was agreed that the rights of parties to prosecute the appeals, against the NOC and the KLU Permission, before the Commissioner could be given up without prejudice to comprehensive contentions on facts on the merits of the NOC and the KOU Permission in these writ petitions. This was recorded in my order dated 21.03.2006 and the files, including those relating to the appeals before the Commissioner and those relating to grant of the NOC and the KLU Permission have been called for and obtained. It is in this context that WP (C) No.9811 of 2006 challenging Ext.P3 NOC granted by the ADM is filed thereafter and entertained.

9. On the basis of the pleadings and the arguments advanced, the following issues arise for decision:

A. Is the Land Revenue Commissioner an appellate authority over the decision of the ADM, to issue NOC under the Petroleum Rules?

B. Is the decision of the ADM issuing NOC under the Petroleum Rules liable to be set aside?

C. Are the decisi