Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 58973
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V.G.ARUN, J
P. K. MITHRAN – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 44774 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.LAL K.JOSEPH, SHRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (THURAVOOR), SHRI.SURESH SUKUMAR, SHRI.SANJAY SELLEN, SMT.SONIA SHIBU, SMT.AAMINA RAFEEK, SMT.SARA ELIZABETH MATHEW
For the Respondents: SHRI.VISHNU PRADEEP, CGC, SHRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SHRI.R.RAJPRADEEP, SHRI.SACHIN RAMESH, SMT.SREEDEVI S., SHRI.K.JOHN MATHAI, SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN, SRI.KURYAN THOMAS, SHRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM, SHRI.RAJA KANNAN, SMT.O.M.SHALINA, DSGI, SHRI.B.G.BIDEN CHANDRAN
The authority must consider representations regarding construction affecting licensed outlets, ensuring due process before decisions.
Headnote:The petitioners obtained a license under the Petroleum Rules for a retail petrol outlet, which was blocked by the construction of an elevated bridge nearby. The court directed that the representation made by the petitioners be considered, emphasizing that the competent authority must take a decision with opportunity for the petitioners to be heard. The construction cannot proceed without due consideration of the petitioners’ grievances.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners licensed for petrol outlet; construction impedes access. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments about fair notice for construction impacting access. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court requires consideration of pending representation. (Para 4) |
J U D G M E N T
Dated this the 18th day of December, 2025 The petitioners have obtained license under the Petroleum Rules for conducting a retail petroleum products outlet. For the purpose of securing the license, petitioners submitted a detailed project report showing the layout of the proposed service road, Panvel-Kochi- Kanyakumari Highway (NH 66), pursuant to which Exhibit P3 license for using the National Highway for access was granted. The petitioners’ grievance is regarding the construction of an elevated bridge on the Highway in the immediate vicinity of the petrol pump, completely blocking its access. Voicing this grievance and seeking redressal, the petitioners have preferred Exhibit P6 representation. The writ petition is filed since the respondents are going ahead with the construction without considering the representation.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that, having granted license for using the National Highway for access, the respondents cannot construct the elevated bridge at that point, without putting the petitioners on notice. It is submitted that the elevated overbridge is being constructed for enabling free flow of water through a channel which became dysfunctional long back.
3. Learned Standing Counsel for the National Highways Authority of India submits that in Exhibit P3 license itself, there is a specific clause providing for renewal of the access road permit in case of emergency. It is the further submission of the learned Counsel that the petitioners were put on notice regarding the proposal to construct the elevated bridge way back in 2023 itself.
4. Although various other contentions are raised by the learned Counsel on both sides, insofar as Exhibit P6 representation is pending, it is only appropriate for the competent authority to take a decision.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of by directing respondents 3 and 4 to consider Exhibit P6 and pass a reasoned order thereon, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as the Panchayat. The order shall be passed within one week of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
