IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2008 / 7TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22844 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.P. CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI, RADHALAYAM, KARAMMA P.O., VALLIKKUNNAM,ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT, MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA. 2. KESAVAPILLAI, POURNAMI VEETTIL, ELIPPEKULAM MURI, VALLIKKUNNAM VILLAGE,MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. BY GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.22844 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 29th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims to have executed an agreement with the 2nd respondent, for sale of certain properties, belonging to the 2nd respondent, to the petitioner. Since the 2nd respondent allegedly did not perform his part of the alleged agreement, the petitioner filed a suit, viz., O.S.21/08 before the Sub Judge, Mavelikkara, for specific performance, in which the petitioner's application for temporary injunction, viz., I.A.144/08, against the 2nd respondent was rejected. The petitioner is stated to have filed an appeal against the said order. In the meanwhile, the 2nd respondent is stated to have filed an application before the 1st respondent for an NOC for starting a petroleum outlet in the property. The petitioner wants to restrain the 1st respondent from issuing an NOC to the 2nd respondent on the alleged ground that there is a dispute regarding the property. The petitioner filed Ext.P4 objection in this regard. The petitioner seeks a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4. 2. I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition at all. In Ext.P2 order of the Sub Court, the entire case of the petitioner has been considered and the Sub Court even suspects the bona w.p.c.22844/08 2 fides of case of the petitioner. In fact in Ext.P2 judgment the Sub Court has specifically held as follows: “13. ...... It is further clear that long before the alleged agreement for sale in favour of the petitioner, the counter petitioner has applied for establishing a petrol pump of the IOC in the plaint schedule property and in the selection priority list, the counter petitioner is placed first and the daughter-in-law of the petitioner is placed only second who has no property of her own to establish a petrol pump in Chunadu. Value of the property shown in the alleged agreement for sale also create some genuine doubt regarding the bonafides of the case of the petitioner....” 3. As on today, the property in question belongs to the 2nd respondent. When even before the alleged agreement, the 2nd respondent had applied for establishing a petrol pump in the property, the petitioner's objection cannot now be considered especially in view of the fact that the daughter-in-law of the petitioner is a competing claimant for the same outlet especially since these objections have nothing to do with the Rules regarding grant of such NOC otherwise. In so far as the petitioner has approached the Civil Court, his remedy lies in that Civil Court itself. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.22844/08 3