Toilets at petrol pump cannot be used as public facilities, says Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court has temporarily barred the state and local bodies from turning toilets at privately run petrol pumps into public conveniences, LiveLaw reported.
Justice CS Dias issued the order while hearing a writ petition filed by the Petroleum Traders Welfare and Legal Service Society and five individual retailers.
The petitioners argued that officials from the state government and Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation were pressuring them to let everyone use their restrooms. Posters had even been pasted on some pumps, creating 'the impression that the toilets are public toilets', they told the court.
'Public use disrupts daily operations'
According to the petition, large groups — including tourists from passing buses — now arrive expecting free access. This crowds petrol-pump premises, causes arguments and, the retailers say, raises safety risks in an area where fuel is handled.
The dealers maintain the washrooms were installed only for customers who stop to refuel and need them in an emergency. Allowing unrestricted entry would 'impede and even endanger the functioning of petrol pumps', they said.
'Hence in light of the impending threat and disastrous consequences which might ensue due to usage of such toilets by general public at large; it is essential that requisite directions may be passed by this Honourable Court to restrict usage of such toilets only to customers who come for refuelling their vehicles and that too only in emergency situations,' the petitioners submitted, as quoted by LiveLaw.
Court seeks Swachh Bharat guidelines
Earlier, the court directed the Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation to produce any guidelines issued under the Swachh Bharat Mission that could justify opening private toilets to the public.
The retailers have also asked for a declaration that their toilets are private property safeguarded by Article 300A of the Constitution, and that no law allows authorities to re-designate them as public facilities under the Petroleum Act or its 2002 Rules.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Business Standard

19 minutes ago

• Business Standard

Explained: Can Trump go to war in Iran without approval from US Congress?

With US President Donald Trump ordering air strikes on three nuclear facilities in Iran—Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan—debate has intensified over the limits of presidential war powers. The strikes, the boldest US intervention yet in the Iran-Israel conflict, have not been accompanied by a formal declaration of war—prompting legal and political scrutiny in Washington. Could Trump be impeached for bypassing Congress? And what role does the War Powers Resolution of 1973 play in curbing presidential overreach? Why War Powers Resolution was introduced in 1973 The War Powers Resolution (WPR), also known as the War Powers Act, was passed in 1973 in the aftermath of the Vietnam War—a prolonged conflict that saw major US involvement without a formal declaration of war. The resolution was designed to prevent the President from unilaterally engaging American forces in hostilities without Congressional oversight. It sought to restore the balance of power by: Requiring the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops Mandating the withdrawal of troops within 60 days unless Congress approves their continued presence Allowing a 30-day grace period for safe withdrawal What US Constitution says about declaring war The US Constitution clearly assigns Congress the sole authority to declare war (Article I, Section 8), while naming the President as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces (Article II, Section 2). This division was meant to ensure that decisions to enter large-scale military conflicts reflect democratic consensus. In practice, however, modern Presidents have increasingly relied on executive authority to conduct military operations without formal war declarations. Presidential precedents and Trump's Iran strike The US has not declared war since World War II, but has engaged in several major conflicts—Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan—without Congressional war declarations. Trump's own administration has previously carried out strikes in Syria (2017 and 2018) without Congressional approval. In the case of Iran, Trump has framed the air strikes as necessary to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. US officials say the attacks were 'limited, targeted, and in coordination with Israel'—and not indicative of a wider war effort. Could Trump be impeached over war in Iran? In theory, yes. If Congress believes the President has violated the Constitution or laws such as the War Powers Resolution, it can initiate impeachment proceedings. However, such action would depend heavily on political will. Past presidents—including Barack Obama, George W Bush and Ronald Reagan—have conducted military operations without Congressional declarations of war, and none faced impeachment for it. Legal scholars remain divided over whether violation of the WPR alone constitutes a 'high crime or misdemeanour' under the Constitution's impeachment clause. If Trump were to escalate the Iran conflict into a prolonged war without Congressional authorisation, and if it provokes significant domestic or international fallout, political calls for impeachment could grow louder. However, removal would still require a majority in the House and a two-thirds vote in the Senate—a high bar. Amid mounting tensions with Iran, US lawmakers—both Democrats and some Republicans—have sought to pass resolutions limiting Trump's ability to wage war. These efforts, while symbolically important, face procedural delays and are unlikely to override a presidential veto. The constitutional ambiguity persists: while Congress alone can declare war, the President can, and often does, launch military action unilaterally—especially if framed as a defensive or time-sensitive measure. What happens next? As of now, Trump has insisted the US does not seek regime change in Iran and has framed the strikes as a 'historic moment' to halt nuclear escalation. Iran, meanwhile, has vowed retaliation and hinted at broader regional consequences. If the US becomes drawn into a longer, bloodier conflict, pressure may mount on Congress to act—whether through legislation, funding restrictions, or impeachment. Until then, the line between presidential authority and Congressional war power remains blurred.

Hans India

25 minutes ago

• Hans India

US strikes on Iran violation of international law: Asaduddin Owaisi

AIMIM president Asaduddin Owaisi has termed the US strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities as a violation of international law and the United Nations charter. The Hyderabad MP alleged that the US, through these attacks, was trying to cover up the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza. He also believes that the attacks will not deter Iran from going ahead with its nuclear programme. Owaisi told media persons that the strikes carried out by the US on three nuclear sites in Iran are a violation of international law, a violation of the United Nations charter, NPT (Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons) and the US Constitution itself. The MP pointed out that under the US Constitution, the country cannot wage war without the approval of the US Congress. Owaisi questioned the double standards of the US on Israel's nuclear weapons. 'Nobody is talking about Israel, which has 700-800 nuclear warheads, which has not signed the NPT and which does not allow IAEA inspectors,' he said. The All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) president predicted that Iran will carry out 90 per cent Uranium enrichment in 5-10 years. 'Iran can't be stopped. It will leave NPT,' he said. The Lok Sabha member also believes that following US strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, Arab and Muslim countries in the region will decide to have nuclear weapons to counter Israel's blackmail and hegemony. 'You will not be able to stop them,' he said. Owaisi said the US intelligence itself had clearly stated that Iran does not have nuclear weapons. He cited the statement of Tulsi Gabbard, Director of US Intelligence. He also voiced concern over the impact of a possible war in the region on 60 lakh Indians living there. Indian companies have their investments in the region, and Indian citizens working there contribute a significant share of foreign exchange remittances. Lashing out at Pakistan, Owaisi asked Islamabad was demanding the Nobel Peace Prize for Trump for throwing the Middle East into war. 'Did Pakistan's General (Army chief Asim Munir) have lunch with the US president for this?' he asked.

New Indian Express

an hour ago

• New Indian Express

Residents rally against the co-op society curb in Karnataka

BENGALURU: The Federation of Karnataka Apartment Cooperative Societies (FOKACS) has raised concerns over the curtailment of apartment owners' fundamental right to form cooperative societies, which plays a key role in ensuring land ownership rights. The federation claims the move goes against Supreme Court (SC) orders and called on the state government to uphold constitutional and legal protection. At a press conference here on Saturday, FOKACS president Parasuraman T K said, 'The fundamental right to form an FOKACS is being curtailed in Karnataka, going against SC orders and the 97th Amendment of the Constitution, which supports this under Article 19(c).' The federation noted that while apartment buyers receive a sale deed granting rights to their unit and a share of common areas 'Undivided Share of Land', this only offers notional land ownership. This has serious consequences, FOKACS Vice President Vidyadhar Durgaker elaborated, 'In cases of redevelopment, road widening, or government land acquisition, apartment owners are not eligible for compensation because they don't legally own the land, but the builder does.' Shailesh, an apartment owner, said, 'Residents pay for land and home, but without a cooperative society, we have no say in court. They lack legal ownership and dispute resolution.'