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

2015 Supreme(Online)(KER) 22340

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
MRS BETTY TERENCE – Appellant
Versus
THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 6157/2015



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/13TH KARTHIKA, 1937

WP(C).No. 6157 of 2015 (T)

---------------------------

PETITIONER(S):

--------------------------

MRS.BETTY TERENCE,

TERENCE NIVAS, KAVANAD P.O.,

MUKKAD, KOLLAM - 691 003.

BY ADVS.SRI.M.V.BOSE,

SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN,

SMT.NISHA BOSE.

RESPONDENT(S):

----------------------------

1. THE STATE OF KERALA,

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,

LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,

GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

2. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

3. THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER,

KOLLAM - 691 601.

4. THRIKKADAVUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT,

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,

PERINAD P.O., PIN - 691 601, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

5. THE SECRETARY,

THRIKKADAVUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PERINAD P.O.,

PIN - 691 601, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN.

R4 & R5 BY ADV. SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD

ON 11/08/2015, THE COURT ON 04/11/2015 DELIVERED THE

FOLLOWING:

rs.

WP(C).No. 6157 of 2015 (T)

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

EXT.P1:

A COPY OF NOTICE DATED 11.09.2012 FROM THE INDIAN OIL

CORPORATION LIMITED.

EXT.P2:

A COPY OF NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED 19.07.2014.

EXT.P3:

A COPY OF CRZ CLEARANCE DATED 01.09.2014.

EXT.P4:

A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02.02.2015 RECEIVED FROM THE

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION.

EXT.P5:

A COPY OF LETTER DATED 04.02.2015 FROM THE INDIAN OIL

CORPORATION.

EXT.P6:

A COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 16.07.2014 IN WP(C).NO.969/2014.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

--------------------------------------------------

W.P.(C) No. 6157 of 2015

--------------------------------------------------

Dated this the 4th day of November, 2015

J U D G M E N T

Aggrieved by the delay in granting clearance to the

petitioner's marine diesel outlet, the petitioner has come

up before this Court.

2.

The petitioner is an applicant for a Kisan Seva

Kendra Dealership on the bank of Ashtamudi Lake. She

has produced Ext.P2 NOC from the Collector and Ext.P3

CRZ clearance from the Kerala Coastal Zone Management

Authority, which were forwarded by the Secretary of the

panchayath to the Indian Oil Corporation. The Indian Oil

Corporation, in turn, requested the Chief Town Planner to

grant approval for the installation of the unit as per Ext.P5

letter. The grievance of the petitioner is that the matter is

unnecessarily held up in spite of the recommendations

from the concerned authorities.

3.

In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 2 &

3, it was contended that the proposed construction comes

W.P.(C) No. 6157 of 2015

..2..

under Group I - Hazardous Occupancy categorized under

Rule 34(3) of the Kerala Panchayath Building Rules, 2011.

On inspection, it was found that the approach road leading

to the above mentioned property is only having a minimum

width of 3.30 meters. While considering the layout

application in respect of the construction under Group I -

Hazardous Occupancy, it was found that the approach

road is not suitable for permitting the marine diesel

outlet. Even though the marine diesel outlet is intended

for supplying fuel to the fishing boats, the fuel has to be

brought to the outlet through road by using tanker lorries.

Two line roads having minimum width of 7 metres is

essential and the minimum width of 7 metre is prescribed

as per Kerala Panchayath Building Rules, 2011. In the

event of an emergency, higher road width is required for

evacuation as well as for the transportation of ambulance,

fire engines etc. According to them, considering the

insufficient width of the approach road, the 2nd respondent

decided to reject the application and the communica

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