IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 W.P(C).No. 19187 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ A.S.SHEEJA BEEGUM,KADAYIL VEEDU, PADINJATTINKARA MURI, VELIYAM, KOTTARAKKARA,KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER E.SHERIEF,AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.EBRAHIMKUTTY, SAFA MAHAL, EYYALLOOR, NEDUMONKAVU P.O, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SRI.LEO GEORGE RESPONDENTS: ------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (NATIONAL HIGHWAY), BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM. 4. S.SULAJAN, AYANIMOOTIL VEEDU, KAITHAKKODU P.O, PUTHUR, KOTTARAKKARA. 5. M/S.HINDUSTHAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD P.B.NO.1601, ERNAKULAM NORTH P.O, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR - R5 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR -R5 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI - R5 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS -R5 SRI.ANIL D. NAIR - R5 SRI. I.V. PRAMOD, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: scm S.SIRI JAGAN, J ================== W.P(C)No. 19187 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 7th day of August, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner complains that the respondents 2 and 3 are not taking appropriate action to issue No Objection Certificate to the petitioner for establishing a Petroleum Retail Outlet under the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., apparently on the ground that a suit in respect of that property is pending. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. The learned Government Pleader submits that in view of the pendency of the suit no NOC could be issued. He also submits that, as per his instructions, the Court has not issued any injunction against the respondent in issuing a No Objection Certificate. I am satisfied that in the absence of any stay or injunction order passed by a competent court respondents 2 and 3 cannot be now take a stand that in view of the pendency of the suit no NOC can W.P(C)No. 19187 of 2008 - 2 - be issued. As on today there is no court order which interfere with the title of the petitioner to the property in question. Therefore, I direct the 5th respondent to process the application of the petitioner for NOC in accordance with law if there is no court order injucting the respondents 2 and 3 from issuing such an NOC. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs