IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2008 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 7124 of 2008(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. PUTHANVEETTIL SUBAIDA,AGED 42 YERAS W/O.MOHAMMAD,PULPALLY AMSOM,DESOM PULPALLI P.O.,SULTHAN BATTERI TALUK WAYANAD DIST. 2. PUTHANVEETTIL MOHAMMAD, AGED 56 YEARS S/O.KONJALAM, PULPALLY AMSOM, DESOM PULPALLI P.O.,SULTHAN BATTERI TALUK WAYANAD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE PULPALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PULPALLY P.O.,SULTHAN BATTERI TALUK, WAYANAD DIST. 2. THE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER KANNUR ROAD, NEAR ELATHOOR RAILWAY STATTION ELATHOOR P.O.,CLAICUT. 3. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE WAYANAD,COLLECTRATE,WAYANAD ,KALPATTA. 4. A.R.MANMADAN,AGED 56 YEARS S/O.RAGHAVAN NAIR,KARIMAMKUNNIL,PULPALLY AMSOM DESOM, SULTHAN BATTERI TALUK,WAYANAD DIST. 5. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TO LOCAL SELF GOVT. BY G.P. SRI.K.J.MUHAMMED ANZAR BY S.C. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 7124 of 2008 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of March , 2008 JUDGMENT The counsel for the petitioners is not available. One of the prayers in the writ petition is that the first respondent Panchayat be directed not to issue NOC to the second respondent – Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. in the matter of establishment of petroleum retail outlet in the proposed site. 2. The learned counsel for the second respondent submits that NOC is not at all necessary from the Panchayat and that NOC has already been issued to the second respondent by the Additional District Magistrate and that the second respondent is yet to do anything pursuant to that NOC. The second respondent has not so far applied for trade licence. Ext.P6, therefore, is premature, according to the learned counsel. 3. There is certainly merit in the submission of the counsel for the second respondent that further NOC is not necessary WPC No.7124/2008 2 from the Panchayat in the matter of installation of the petroleum outlet. Ext.P6, in as much as the second respondent is yet to apply for licence, appears to be premature. At the same time, the request of the petitioners that they also should be allowed a say in the matter before the Panchayat issues licence to the second respondent cannot be said to be totally unreasonable. Therefore, even as I decline the prayers in the writ petition, I dispose of the same by directing the first respondent Panchayat to take up Ext.P6 along with the application for licence submitted by the second respondent whenever the same is submitted and dispose of the licence application as well as Ext.P6 together after hearing the petitioners and the second respondent. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. dpk