Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 39556
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J
M.BASHEER – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 25664 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN, SMT.N.P.ASHA
For the Respondents: SRI.K.M. FAIZAL
Environmental authorities must consider local grievances and follow due process before granting approvals related to potentially polluting constructions.
Headnote:(A) Environmental Protection Act - Issues of property rights and concern over pollution due to construction of Fuel Outlet Pump; acute focus on hearing of affected parties is mandated before permission grants. (Paras 1, 2, 3, 4, 6)
(B) Administrative responsibility - Authorities failing to consider local environmental impacts before granting No Objection Certificate and necessity of consent letters from affected parties was emphasized. (Paras 2, 3, 4)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner argues against the construction of a Fuel Outlet within proximity to his residential property, asserting environmental risks and lack of properly followed administrative processes.
Findings of Court:
The court ordered the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation regarding pollution concerns and directed a hearing for affected parties before any decisions are made.
Issues: The primary issue addressed was the grievance regarding potential pollution from the proposed Fuel Outlet and the procedural fairness regarding the No Objection Certificate granted to the developers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for administrative authorities to adhere to environmental protection laws and the importance of taking local grievances into consideration.
Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions to the authorities.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. concerns regarding construction impact on drinking water (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court mandates administrative review of grievances (Para 5 , 6) |
JUDGMENT Dated this the 14th day of July, 2025 The petitioner and his family members are residing in Tholicode Grama Panchayat. The petitioner states that his neighbours, joining hands with the revenue officials, have given No Objection Certificate for the construction of a Fuel Outlet Pump within the property having an extent of 26.91 Ares in Survey Nos.1445/2-2, 1444/1-3 and 1447/1 in Tholicode Village.
2. The concerned authorities failed to hear the plea of the petitioner and his family members by representing that the construction is not for a Fuel Outlet Pump but only for an Electric Charging Station. The construction of the proposed Fuel Outlet Pump is situated only a distance of 5.90 metres from the residential building of the petitioner. The petitioner and his family members are depending upon the water available in one well dug 40 years ago for drinking and other purposes. The revenue officials have not taken into consideration that the locality is a residential area. The 4th respondent, who is duty bound to inform the authorities that a stream has been flowing through the middle of the ongoing construction and the stream ends in a bigger river, has failed to do so.
3. It is clearly stated in the Office Memorandum that the groundwater and soil quality monitoring has to be conducted near the Petrol / Diesel Outlet before installation of new Fuel Outlet and shall follow the guidelines of the State Pollution Control Board. But, the concerned authorities are not acting in accordance with law while granting NOC for the Fuel Pump Outlet. The owners of the Petrol Pump have not produced any consent letters from the adjacent landowners including the petitioner.
4. The petitioner has approached the
2nd respondent in order to redress his grievances by filing a complaint dated 09.05.2025 against the revenue officials to take immediate steps in this regard. But, the same has not been considered till this date. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 4. Notice to the 5th respondent is dispensed with in view of the nature of the relief to be granted in the writ petition.
6. The grievance of the petitioner is that a proposed Retail Petroleum Outlet is likely to cause pollution to the nearby stream where the petitioner is residing, affecting the drinking water availability of the petitioner and similarly situated persons. The petitioner has preferred Ext.P3 representation before the 2nd respondent in this regard. The limited prayer of the petitioner is to direct the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P3 representation.
In the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P3 representation submitted by the petitioner and take appropriate decision thereon, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other affected parties, if any. A decision in this regard shall be taken within a period of two months.
