Rejections of construction permits due to encroachment-related road width issues are invalid; the state must address encroachments to ensure rightful property use.

J U D G M E N T

The prayers in the Writ Petition are as follows:

"i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing Exhibit P2 order issued by the

1st respondent.

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1st respondent to grant permission to the petitioner for constructing the LPG godown in Re-Survey No.499/3 of Arookutty village, Cherthala, Alappuzha district: and iii) grant such other reliefs and costs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the nature and circumstances of this case."

2. Heard Sri.Venjaramoodu M.Ziyad, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.K.J.Manuraj, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 3 and Sri.R.Harikrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent (Arookutty Grama Panchayath).

3. The factual aspects projected in the writ petition (civil) are as follows;

The petitioner has received letter of intent dated 24.12.2016 offering an LPG distributorship at Aroor, Alappuzha under Scheduled Caste category by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P2 order passed by the 1st respondent, whereby permission was refused for constructing an LPG go-down in Re-survey No.499/3 in Arookutty Village, Cherthala, Alappuzha District on the ground that the approach road to the proposed gas go-down was less than 7 meters as required by the law.

That by Ext P6 dated 10.6.2019, the 3rd respondent has informed the

2nd respondent that the total width of the Vaduthala-Kudapuram road is 7.50 metres and also informed that the width of the road leading to the (leased) property of the petitioner is in a range of 7-7.40 metres. Therefore, it is very evident that the road leading to the petitioner's leased property is having a width of 7.50 metres. But in the measurement carried out by the 1st respondent, the width of the road concerned shows shortfall at some points ie. below 7 metres. The said shortfall is on account of encroachment.

That in view of the above, the 1st respondent is not having any manner of right to reject the building application submitted by the petitioner. The Ext.P2 issued by the 1st respondent is arbitrary, illegal and against the principles of natural justice.

4. In the light of these averments and conditions, the petitioner seeks the afore mentioned prayers.

5. As per the pleadings in this case, it is seen that the petitioner has been offered an LPG distributorship at Aroor, Alleppey district under Scheduled Caste category by M/s.Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) through Ext.P1 letter of intent dated 24.12.2016. Further that the petitioner has entered into a lease agreement dated 7.11.2018 for 15 years with one P.A Ibrahimkutty of Arookutty Village, Cherthala, Alappuzha district to construct a LPG gas go-down in a property having an extent of 12.14 ares comprised in Re-survey No.499/3 (Old Survey No.116/20B) which belongs to the latter. That the petitioner has submitted an application dated 28.1.2019 before the 2nd respondent Arookutty Grama Panchayath for usage of plot and layout of building approval for construction of a LPG storage go- down in the leased property. Further that the site lay out and construction plan of the proposed storage facilities were also duly approved by the Petroleum & Explosives Safety Organisation (PESO) as per Ext.P5 order dated 26.2.2019. Subsequently the 2nd respondent Arookutty Grama Panchayat has forwarded an application dated 12.3.2019 for NOC to the 1st respondent Regional Officer, Fire and Rescue Services, Kottayam. The 1st respondent Regional Officer, Fire and Rescue Services, Kottayam has rejected the application for grant of NOC as per Ext.P2 order dated 13.6.2019. Consequently, the 2nd respondent Arookutty Grama Panchayat has also rejected the application of the petitioner for building permit as per Ext.P3 order dated 22.6.2019, in view of the rejection ordered as per Ext.P2. Further