SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 30521

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 20.10.2022 DELIVERED ON : 28.10.2022 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR W .P.No.1 4113 o f 2 014 a nd W.M.P.No.6 038 o f 2 018 & M.P.No.2 o f 2 014 M/s.Karaikal Port Private Limited, Represented by its Director, Mrs.V.P.Rajini Reddy, Keezhavanjoor Village, T.R.Pattinam, Karaikal - 609606. .. Petitioner Vs.

1. The Deputy Collector (Revenue)

cum Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Government of Puducherry, District Collectorate, Karaikal - 609602.

2. The Member Secretary, Karaikal Planning Authority, Karaikal.

3. The Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, Shastri Bhavan, Haddows Road, Chennai - 600034.

4. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., No.90, 2nd Floor, MDSR Enclave, Barathidasan Road, Contonment, Tiruchirapalli.

5. S.Rajasekaran

6. The Director of Ports, Port Department, Government of Puducherry, Puducherry.

(R6 impleaded as per order dt.24.02.2017 in WMP No.35274/2016) .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent relating to the order granting No Objection Certificate to the Fourth Respondent in Ref.No.10358/SDM/B4/2012, dated 13.05.2014 for setting up of a Petrol/Diesel retail outlet at R.S.No.132/1 and 132/2 of No.37 Vanjore Revenue Village, T.R.Pattinam Coommune Panchayat in Karaikal District by installing 4 underground storage tanks and 6 dispensing pumps to store Petroleum Products and to quash the same and forbear the third respondent herein from granting licence to the fourth/fifth respondents under Petroleum Rules 2002 for setting up of a Petrol/Diesel retail outlet in the above said land.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Aravindan for M/s.Fox Mandal & Associates For Respondents 1, 2&6 : Mrs.V.Usha AGP (Pondy)

For Respondent 3 : Mr.C.Kulanthaivel SPC For Respondent 4 : Mr.M.Vijayan for M/s.King and Patridge For Respondent 5 : Mr.N.Ramakrishnan for M/s.Waraon Sai Rams - - - - -

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated

13.05.2014, granting No Objection Certificate to the Fourth Respondent for setting up of a Petrol/Diesel retail outlet at R.S.No.132/1 and 132/2 of No.37 Vanjore Revenue Village, T.R.Pattinam Coommune Panchayat in Karaikal District by installing 4 underground storage tanks and 6 dispensing pumps to store Petroleum Products and to forbear the third respondent herein from granting licence to the fourth/fifth respondents under the Petroleum Rules

2002 for setting up of a Petrol/Diesel retail outlet in the above said land.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition is as follows:

(i) The case of the writ petitioner is that about 600 acres of land in Keezhavanjore village, Karaikal, Union Territory of Puducherry was allotted/leased to the petitioner by the Government of Puducherry for developing and operating the Karaikal Port vide Lease and Possession Agreements dated 23.02.2006, 28.07.2008 and 05.02.2007 which was consolidated and re-confirmed vide Re-stated Lease and Possession Agreement dated 19.11.2010, registered as document No.1211 of 2010.

(ii) The Karaikal Port was developed and constructed with a huge investment by the petitioner and is in commercial operation since 2009. The lands comprised in R.S.Nos.131/1, 131/2 and 132/2B, Vanjore Village, Karaikal which is abutting the National Highway NH-45A is part and parcel of the total land leased to the petitioner.

(iii) The said stretch of land is the only available means to access the port. The entire port land is used for port operations, warehousing, receiving and discharging cargo, preserving cargo, administrations and all other connected activities of the port and as such the land area is only meant for the said port purposes and not for any other purposes.

(iv) The petitioner has also proposed to construct a railway over bridge which would lead to NH45A directly from the port, which will change the purpose and usage of the stretch of land abutting NH45A which may be used for storage purposes.

(v) The petitioner has also sharing certain portion of the revenue collected from such operations as concession fee besides payment of lease rentals for the lands.

(vi) The entire port area including the stretch of land abutting the NH45A is a customs area as notified vide Customs Department Notification dated 09.04.2009 and declared the petitioner as the custodian of the Port vide Customs Department Notification dated 06.04.2011.

(vii) The entire port facility established in the port land including the land abutting NH45A is a high security zone. Further, it is a protected area and which cannot be permitted for any purposes other than port operations and related purposes. Therefore, permitting any person to use the port lands / facilities for any other purposes would tend to create a threat to the security of the port besides would tantamount to violating codes/guidelines of security as envisaged under the laws of India.

(viii) The 4th and 5th respondents have proposed to establish a petroleum retail outlet, in the land adjacent to the stretch of land abutting NH45A used for petitioner's private access at present, comprised in R.S.No.132/01 (Part B) and 132/2a/1 (Part B) at Vanjore Village. The 5th respondent by letter dated 28.02.2012, requested the petitioner to provide permission to establish a petroleum retail outlet in the said area and to permit access through the land abutting NH45A (exclusive private access) of the petitioner. The same was denied by the petitioner vide letter dated

24.03.2012.

(ix) Despite the refusal by the petitioner, the 4th and 5th respondents applied for No Objection Certificate (NOC) to the 1st respondent to install the petrol outlet in the said land under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002.

(x) The first respondent had called a meeting on 11.05.2012 and

28.05.2012 and similarly the second respondent has also called a meeting on 18.02.2014. The petitioner has given his obj

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top