Judicial review limits the locus standi of individuals in administrative challenges to those directly aggrieved, rejecting complaints lacking substance as an abuse of process.

JUDGMENT :

Harisankar V. Menon, J.

These writ petitions are filed by the respective petitioners who are stated to be running the business of LPG distributorship based on the licence issued by the respondent local authority, among other permits, seeking to challenge certain proceedings initiated based on a complaint lodged by a third party.

2. The petitioner in W.P(C) No.3999 of 2023 is stated to have obtained LPG distributorship in Mattanchery, from the 5^th respondent herein - Indian Oil Corporation (IOC), as evidenced by the letter of intent issued by the said Corporation. The petitioner states that in connection with the afore business, he requires to have an LPG godown for the storage of cylinders, and on the basis of Ext.P2 NOC issued by the Kerala Coastal Management Authority, clearance was also granted for setting up the godown. He further contends that some repairs were required to be carried out to the roof of the building, and a permit was also sought for on that basis from the Kochi Corporation. However, a show cause notice was issued under the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act , 1994. The petitioner sought for regularising the afore and states that he obtained all required certificates, like NOC, from the Fire Department, Pollution Control Board, and also under the Gas Cylinder Rules , 2016, as also the licence from the Kochi Corporation under the Municipality Act,1994. It is in the afore circumstances, the petitioner states that Ext.P2 notice was issued by the 4^th respondent, intimating that the licence issued to the petitioner was cancelled since the NOCs issued were unauthorised. The petitioner further states that he obtained Ext.P13 under the Right to Information Act , 2005, as per which such a decision was taken by the 1^st respondent. This is followed by Exts.P14 and P15 communications directing the petitioner to make an alternate arrangement for removing the gas cylinders stored in the godowns as above. It is seeking to challenge Exts.P12, 13, and P15 that the petitioner has filed W.P(C) No.3999 of 2023.

3. The petitioner in W.P(C) No.7495 of 2023 is also stated to be running an LPG distributorship in Mattanchery and Fort Kochi areas on the basis of the authorisation from the IOC. The gas godown and office of the petitioner are stated to be established in the property covered by Exts.P1 and P2 sale deeds. The petitioner contends that the sale deeds as above evidence the existence of the building numbers 10/179 and 10/180A of Chellanam Panchayat. He also states, like in the other case, that the afore business was running on the basis of a trade license issued by the Panchayat. The petitioner states that the above-referred buildings are being used as an office and godown. He contends that the building numbers were subsequently re-assigned as 10/177 and 10/177A of Chellanam Panchayat. It is at that juncture, petitioner states that the Secretary of Chellanam Panchayat (3^rd respondent) issued Ext.P5 show cause notice to cancel the NOC as well as the licence issued as above. The petitioner states that the afore steps were taken against him on the basis of the proceedings of the Government dated 01.12.2022, concluding that the NOC for the godown issued as above was unauthorised. This communication is the same communication in W.P(C) No.3999 of 2023 produced as Ext.P13. In such circumstances, the petitioner has instituted W.P(C) No.7495 of 2023 seeking to challenge Ext.P5 show cause notice as well as Ext.P8 Government letter.

4. A third party who filed the complaints, based on which steps as above were initiated, got himself impleaded in W.P(C) No.3999 of 2023 as the additional 6^th respondent