JUDGMENT : Harisankar V. Menon, J. These writ petitions are filed by the respective petitioners who are stated to be running the business of LPG distributorship based on the licence issued by the respondent local authority, among other permits, seeking to challenge certain proceedings initiated based on a complaint lodged by a third party. 2. The petitioner in W.P(C) No.3999 of 2023 is stated to have obtained LPG distributorship in Mattanchery, from the 5 th respondent herein - Indian Oil Corporation (IOC), as evidenced by the letter of intent issued by the said Corporation. The petitioner states that in connection with the afore business, he requires to have an LPG godown for the storage of cylinders, and on the basis of Ext.P2 NOC issued by the Kerala Coastal Management Authority, clearance was also granted for setting up the godown. He further contends that some repairs were required to be carried out to the roof of the building, and a permit was also sought for on that basis from the Kochi Corporation. However, a show cause notice was issued under the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act , 1994. The petitioner sought for regularising the afore and states that he obtained all required certificates, like NOC, from the Fire Department, Pollution Control Board, and also under the Gas Cylinder Rules , 2016, as also the licence from the Kochi Corporation under the Municipality Act,1994. It is in the afore circumstances, the petitioner states that Ext.P2 notice was issued by the 4 th respondent, intimating that the licence issued to the petitioner was cancelled since the NOCs issued were unauthorised. The petitioner further states that he obtained Ext.P13 under the Right to Information Act , 2005, as per which such a decision was taken by the 1 st respondent. This is followed by Exts.P14 and P15 communications directing the petitioner to make an alternate arrangement for removing the gas cylinders stored in the godowns as above. It is seeking to challenge Exts.P12, 13, and P15 that the petitioner has filed W.P(C) No.3999 of 2023. 3. The petitioner in W.P(C) No.7495 of 2023 is also stated to be running an LPG distributorship in Mattanchery and Fort Kochi areas on the basis of the authorisation from the IOC. The gas godown and office of the petitioner are stated to be established in the property covered by Exts.P1 and P2 sale deeds. 3. The petitioner in W.P(C) No.7495 of 2023 is also stated to be running an LPG distributorship in Mattanchery and Fort Kochi areas on the basis of the authorisation from the IOC. The gas godown and office of the petitioner are stated to be established in the property covered by Exts.P1 and P2 sale deeds. The petitioner contends that the sale deeds as above evidence the existence of the building numbers 10/179 and 10/180A of Chellanam Panchayat. He also states, like in the other case, that the afore business was running on the basis of a trade license issued by the Panchayat. The petitioner states that the above-referred buildings are being used as an office and godown. He contends that the building numbers were subsequently re-assigned as 10/177 and 10/177A of Chellanam Panchayat. It is at that juncture, petitioner states that the Secretary of Chellanam Panchayat (3 rd respondent) issued Ext.P5 show cause notice to cancel the NOC as well as the licence issued as above. The petitioner states that the afore steps were taken against him on the basis of the proceedings of the Government dated 01.12.2022, concluding that the NOC for the godown issued as above was unauthorised. This communication is the same communication in W.P(C) No.3999 of 2023 produced as Ext.P13. In such circumstances, the petitioner has instituted W.P(C) No.7495 of 2023 seeking to challenge Ext.P5 show cause notice as well as Ext.P8 Government letter. 4. A third party who filed the complaints, based on which steps as above were initiated, got himself impleaded in W.P(C) No.3999 of 2023 as the additional 6 th respondent and in W.P(C) No.7495 of 2023 as the additional 5 th respondent. 5. I have heard Smt.M.A.Vaheeda Babu, the learned counsel for the petitioners in the afore writ petitions, Sri.A.V.Shaji, the learned counsel for the additional 6 th respondent in W.P.(C) No.3999 of 2023, as well as the additional 5 th respondent - Krishan Dev Gaur, who appeared in person in W.P(C) No.7495 of 2023 in spite of him being represented by a learned counsel in the other writ petition. 6. 6. Smt.Vaheeda, the learned counsel for the petitioners, would point out that it is only when a counter affidavit is filed by the respondent in W.P(C) No.7495 of 2023 that the petitioner in the said writ petition came to realise that the allegation against the buildings used by the petitioner is the violation of the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Regulation , 2019. She states that the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority (KCZMA) had already reported that the buildings in question were constructed before the CRZ notification, hence there is no violation as contended. As regards the involvement of the additional 5 th respondent, she relies on the averments contained in the additional affidavit dated 18.11.2024, wherein it stated that he himself was conducting LPG distributorship business in Mattanchery, and the license was terminated by the IOC when they found out that it was on the basis of a fabricated legal heirship certificate that he obtained a license. Therefore, according to her, the entire proceedings initiated by the local authority on the basis of the complaint made by the additional 5 th respondent require to be set aside The learned counsel for the petitioners also invites the attention of this Court to the alleged requirement of the access width, which has already been considered while deciding W.P(C) No.2701 of 2021 by judgment dated 20.07.2021 (Ext.P4). According to her, the principles laid down in W.A.No.249 of 2016 by a Division Bench of this Court have been applied while disposing of the writ petition, noticing that the road in question originally had 6.5 meters width as against the statutory requirement of 6 meters. As regards the requirements of setback, she relies on Ext.P4 judgment itself to contend that a sufficient setback has since been provided. 7. Sri. Shaji, the learned counsel for the additional 5 th respondent, places reliance on the averments found in the counter affidavit and states that the godown/building concerned was unauthorised. He also relies on certain observations in Ext.R5(d) report of the Internal Vigilance Officer of the Local Self Government Department. 8. I have considered the rival contentions as well as the connected records. 9. As regards the show cause notices issued to the respective petitioners as above, this Court notices that the allegation raised in Ext.P13 challenged in W.P(C) No.3999 of 2023 is as if the NOC’s obtained by the petitioners were unauthorised. 8. I have considered the rival contentions as well as the connected records. 9. As regards the show cause notices issued to the respective petitioners as above, this Court notices that the allegation raised in Ext.P13 challenged in W.P(C) No.3999 of 2023 is as if the NOC’s obtained by the petitioners were unauthorised. However, these communications are silent as to why it is concluded that the NOC obtained is unauthorised. It is further to be noticed that Ext.P13 has been specifically issued with reference to the petitioners' NOC as well as the gas distribution business of one Ursula Alaxander. But as already noticed, Ext.P13 is silent as to why it is concluded that the NOC for gas distribution is unauthorised. Similarly, the afore communications are also silent as to which NOC is being referred to therein. In other words, Ext.P13 issued as above cannot be sustained. For the same reason, Ext.P12 issued by the 4 th respondent in W.P(C) No.3999 of 2023 also cannot be sustained. 10. Though various contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the 5 th respondent, this Court notices that he himself, being an LPG distributor earlier, is proceeding with mala fides. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner in W.P(C) No.7495 of 2023, it is categorically pointed out as under:- 5. It is submitted that, the additional 5 th respondent was conducting LPG Distributionship at Mattancherry under the name and style United Gas Agencies by producing fabricated legal heir ship certificate which culminated in the termination of his license by the Indian Oil Corporation. In that place, the brother of the petitioner who is also targeted in Exhibit P8 was given LOI by IOC. As per the award in the matter of Arbitration, between him and Indian Oil Corporation, under issue No.20 in para No. 6.20 it was held as follows, “Issue No.20: How did Indian Oil Corporation came into a conclusion that the fake legal heir ship certificate was created by the claimant without any support of documentary and oral evidence. It can be accessed from the following letters that the Legal Heirs Certificate (Exhibit-B- 4) submitted by the claimants was fabricated one; a) Letter from the Tahsildar, Kochi to Collector vide no. H-2-4206/2015 dt. 18/03/15(Exhibit -B- 1) informing that the said Legal heir certificate was not issued by him and is fabricated one. It can be accessed from the following letters that the Legal Heirs Certificate (Exhibit-B- 4) submitted by the claimants was fabricated one; a) Letter from the Tahsildar, Kochi to Collector vide no. H-2-4206/2015 dt. 18/03/15(Exhibit -B- 1) informing that the said Legal heir certificate was not issued by him and is fabricated one. b) Letter from Tahsildar, Kochi to Sales Officer, IOC, Kochi vide no. H-2- 5358/15dt. 17/04/15 (enclosure to Exhibit-B-1) informing that the said legal heirs certificate was not issued by him and is fabricated one. c) Letter from Collector to IOC, Kochi vide no. E.4-20491/15dt. 11/05/15 (enclosure to Exhibit- B-1) informing that the said legal heirs certificate was not issued by him and is fabricated one and advised to take legal action on the fabricated government document. It is seen that the letter from government office i.e., from revenue officials and District Collector is the authority who has advised that respondent that, the Legal Heirs Certificate submitted by the claimant was not issued by the Tahsildar, Kochi. Further, the government letter/s are to be taken as authenticate and no further support of document and oral evidence on the same is essential.” Later, infuriated by the termination of the license, the additional 5 th respondent, as a retaliatory measure has been in the habit of filing false and baseless complaints to various authorities including Director of Panchayath, Central Government and Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority etc. 6. On the basis of the false and frivolous complaints, the authorities conducted various enquiries/investigation, inspection and found that such complaints are meritless. His attempt was only to harass the petitioner and to prevent the smooth conduct of the business in the property. It is also relevant to mention here that when he realized that he will not be able to regain or get back his cancelled distributorship, he fielded Ms. Asha Gaur, who is his close relative for obtaining a fresh distributorship by her. As he realized that the same was not possible as there are licenses already authorized by IOC, for accomplishing his ill motive, he started filing false, frivolous and baseless complaints against petitioner and also against all other distributors in that area, before all authorities. Asha Gaur, who is his close relative for obtaining a fresh distributorship by her. As he realized that the same was not possible as there are licenses already authorized by IOC, for accomplishing his ill motive, he started filing false, frivolous and baseless complaints against petitioner and also against all other distributors in that area, before all authorities. It is now understood that, Exhibit P8 Order was also obtained by the 5 th respondent by practicing fraud and behind the back of the petitioner.” In spite of the afore averments, the additional 5 th respondent has not offered any explanation or sought to deny the afore averments in his affidavit. Therefore, I am of the opinion that there is no requirement to consider the contentions raised by the additional 5 th respondent as above. 11. This Court, in this regard, relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar , Haji Bashir Ahmed and other [ AIR 1976 SC 578 ] wherein the grant of no objection to a cinema theatre was challenged by a rival in the trade by invoking the certiorari jurisdiction of the High Court. The Apex Court framed the following question for consideration:- “1. ….Whether the proprietor of a cinema theatre holding a licence for exhibiting cinematograph films is entitled to invoke the certiorari jurisdiction ex debito justitiae to get a "No- Objection Certificate', granted under Rule 6 of the Bombay Cinema Rules, 1954 (for short, the Rules) by the District Magistrate in favour of a rival in the trade, brought up and quashed on the ground that it suffers from a defect of jurisdiction, is the principal question that falls to be determined in this appeal by special leave.” The afore question has been considered and answered as under:- “36. It will be seen that in the context of locus standi to apply for a writ of certiorari, an applicant may ordinarily fall in any of these categories: (i) 'person aggrieved'; (ii) 'stranger'; (iii) busybody of meddlesome interloper. Persons in the last category are easily distinguishable from those coming under the first two categories. Such persons interfere in things which do not concern them. They masquerade as crusaders for justice. They pretend to act in the name of Pro Bono Publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect. Persons in the last category are easily distinguishable from those coming under the first two categories. Such persons interfere in things which do not concern them. They masquerade as crusaders for justice. They pretend to act in the name of Pro Bono Publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect. They indulge in the past-time of meddling with the judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives. Often, they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity; while the ulterior intent of some applicants in this category, may be no more than spoking the wheels of administration. The High Court should do well to reject the applications of such busybodies at the threshold. 37. The distinction between the first and second categories of applicants, though real, is not always well- demarcated. The first category has, as it were, two concentric zones: a solid central zone of certainty, and a grey outer circle of lessening certainty in a sliding centrifugal scale, with an outermost nebulous fringe of uncertainty. Applicants falling within the central zone are those whose legal rights have been infringed. Such applicants undoubtedly stand in the category of 'persons aggrieved". In the grey outer-circle the bounds which separate the first category from the second, intermix, interfuse and overlap increasingly in a centrifugal direction. All persons in this outerzone may not be "persons aggrieved". 38. To distinguish such applicants from 'strangers', among them, some broad tests may be deduced from the conspectus made above. These tests are not absolute and ultimate. Their efficacy varies according to the circumstances of the case, including the statutory context in which the matter falls to be considered. These are: Whether the applicant is a person whose legal right has been infringed? Has he suffered a legal wrong or injury, in the sense, that his interest, recognised by law, has been prejudicially and directly affected by the act or omission of the authority, complained of? Is he a person who has suffered as legal grievance, a person "against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something, or wrongfully affected his title to something? Has he a special and substantial grievance of his own beyond some grievance or inconvenience suffered by him in common with the rest of the public? Has he a special and substantial grievance of his own beyond some grievance or inconvenience suffered by him in common with the rest of the public? Was he entitled to object and be heard by the authority before it took the impugned action? If so, was he prejudicially affected in the exercise of that right by the act of usurpation of jurisdiction on the part of the authority? Is the statute, in the context of which the scope of the words "person aggrieved" is being considered, a social welfare measure designed to lay down ethical or professional standards of conduct for the community? Or is it a statute, dealing with private rights of particular individuals?” In my opinion, the additional 5 th respondent has no locus to challenge the issue of permits issued to the petitioners in these writ petitions. As already noticed, the additional 5 th respondent was originally an LPG distributor who had been unceremoniously sent out, and the petitioners were provided with the dealership. It is on that basis that the allegations noticed as above have been raised against the additional 5 th respondent, to which no explanation has been offered by the additional 5 th respondent. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the contentions raised by the additional 5 th respondent do not deserve to be adjudicated. This is all the more so since, when a specific query was raised to the additional 5 th respondent, as well as his counsel, to explain how he is affected by the running of the LPG distributorship by the respective petitioners, no answers were provided. This Court also notices that the additional 5 th respondent has no claim that he has been challenging the constructions in violation of CRZ guidelines, etc., not restricted to the petitioners in these cases. Therefore, in my opinion, the additional 5 th respondent has sought to get himself impleaded with an ulterior motive for, which this Court’s time is not to be wasted. In such circumstances, these writ petitions would stand allowed, setting aside Ext.P8 in W.P(C) No.7495 of 2023 and Exts.P12 and P13 in W.P(C) No.3999 of 2023. However, it is clarified that the respective local authorities would be entitled to proceed against the petitioners by issuing proper show cause notices, with specific reference to the allegations against them, if so advised.