MUHAMMED RAFEEQ Vs. VENGOLA GRAMA PANCHAYATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The third respondent has issued letter of intent in favour of additional fourth respondent for establishing a petroleum retail outlet. It is stated by the petitioner that thereupon, the third respondent has approached the second respondent for building permit to construct the structures required for running the petroleum outlet. According to the petitioner, the third respondent is contemplating to establish the petroleum outlet otherwise than in accordance with the Building Rules and the petitioner has, therefore, preferred a representation before the second respondent to afford him an opportunity of hearing before granting the building permit sought for by the third respondent. Ext.P1 is the representation preferred by the petitioner before the second respondent in this regard. This writ petition is instituted thereupon, alleging that the second respondent is not considering Ext.P1 representation. The petitioner also prays for a direction to the second respondent to afford him an opportunity of hearing on the application preferred by the third respondent for grant of building permit.

(2.) When the writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent sought time and filed a counter affidavit in the matter. Among others, it is contended by the third respondent in the counter affidavit that the pleadings of the petitioner as regards the alleged violation of the Building Rules attributed against the third respondent are vague; that the petitioner is a close relative of one Mr.Komu who is running a petroleum outlet in the vicinity of the proposed petroleum outlet and that the writ petition is instituted for the purpose of protecting the commercial interests of the said person.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent.