IMPORTANT POINTS
Powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on each High Court is independent, and each High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is empowered to decide independently notwithstanding the interim order granted by a High Court in India, and even when a final decision is rendered interpreting a Central law on the grounds of competence of legislation. Whether it be legislation, delegated or subordinate legislation, it is trite law considering the difference in the views expressed by different High Courts, on a particular subject or subjects, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has approved the views expressed by some High Courts and disapproved the contrary views expressed by other High Courts.

JUDGMENT :

S.MANIKUMAR, J.

Instant writ appeal is filed challenging the judgment in W.P.(C)No.32956 of 2019 dated 18th March, 2020 by which a learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition following the judgment in W.A.No.27 of 2020 and connected cases, holding that the No Objection Certificate issued in favour of 10th respondent and the commencement of the outlet will be subject to the direction contained in the judgment of the Division Bench.

2. Writ petition has been filed challenging the proposal to open a petroleum retail outlet by the 10th respondent. The challenge is mainly made on the two grounds (1) proposal is against Ext.P1 guidelines issued by the Indian Road Congress with regard to the distance (2) the challenge is made based on the violation on the conditions stipulated under Ext.P3 order passed by the District Collector while permitting to reclaim and fill up the land by the predecessor in interest of the 10th respondent. Reliefs sought for in the writ petition are as hereunder:

“(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order, directing the respondents 1 to 9 to take up and consider Ext.P4 objection filed by the petitioner before issuing a No Objection Certificate to the 10th respondent for commencement of a petroleum fuel station in Old Survey No.11/2 and 12/1, new Resurvey No.6/7, Block No.52 of Manjeri Village along the side of Kozhikode-Ooty State Highway at Rajeev Gandhi Bye Pass Road, Manjeri;

(b) To direct the respondents 1 to 9 to strictly comply with the guidelines issued under Ext.P1 before granting No Objection Certificate to the 10th respondent;

(c) To declare that the proposed petroleum fuel outlet by the 10th respondent is located within the prohibited distance under Ext.P1 guidelines and to pass consequential orders.”

3. Learned Single Judge, after considering the contentions raised by both sides disposed of the writ petition as hereunder:

“5. It is submitted by the learned counsel on all sides that the Writ Appeal has been finally heard and disposed of in terms of the interim order. In the instant case, there was an interim order granted on 10.01.2020 on the basis of the directions contained in the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

6. However, in view of the interim order of the Division Bench, I am of the opinion that this case is also liable to be governed by the interim orders and the judgment of the Division Bench in the above case. Though the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the withdrawal of the IRC Guidelines has been stayed by the Madras High Court, I am of the opinion that this Court would primarily be bound by the judgment of the Division Bench in the Writ Appeal.

In the above view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of. The judgment of the Division Bench in W.A No.27 of 2020 and connected cases will govern this writ petition also. Appropriate steps shall be taken by the respondents to comply with the directions contained in the said judgment.”

4. According to Mr.T.Sethumadhavan, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, the learned single judge failed to consider the second ground on which issuance of no objection certificate was challenged by the appellant. At this juncture, we deem it fit to extract what is the second ground of challenge.

“D. Learned Single Judge failed to consider the second ground on which the issuance of No Objection Certificate was challenged by the appellant. As can be seen from Ext.P3 proceedings of the 1st respondent a restriction was imposed against the grantee not to reclaim or fill up the land further. This is not considered by the 3rd respondent before issuing the N.O.C.”

He further contended that it is evident from Ext.P3 proceedings of the 1st respondent, a restriction was imposed against the grantee not to reclaim or fill up the land further. According to the appellant, this is not considered by the third respondent before issuing the NOC. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the