Sreekandhan R & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors.

The Petitioners have filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P14 NOC granted by the Respondent No.4/District Authority in favour of the Respondent No.11/Oil Marketing Company in order to enable the Respondent No.15 to start a petroleum retail outlet on the premises near the residences of the Petitioners.

The Respondents Nos.3, 11 and 15 have filed separate Counter Affidavits opposing the prayers in the Writ Petition.

I heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Sri.K.M.Jamaludheen, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.10, Sri.E.K.Nandakumar instructed by Adv. Sri. M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar, Counsel for the Respondent No.15, Sri. A. Salini Lal, learned Government Pleader, Sri. Rafeek V.K., for the Respondents/State Authorities and Deputy Solicitor General, Smt.O.M. Shalina, for the Respondents/Central Government Authorities.

The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that the boundary of the school in the vicinity is situated within the prohibited distance of 30 meters from the dispensing unit of the proposed petroleum outlet. Learned Counsel relied on Ext.P4 Report of the Sub Collector in this regard, which would show that the distance from the dispensing unit to the school is only 26.5 metres. The learned Counsel further contended that there was Ext.P12 Adverse Report from the Respondent No.10/Commissioner of Police and Ext.P14 NOC was given without considering it.

Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.11 and the Counsel for the Respondent No.15 submitted that the location of the Dispensing Unit is changed subsequent to the issuance of Ext.P14 NOC and Ext.R11(c)/R15(c) Revised Plan is obtained and the same is approved by PESO. As per the Revised Plan, the distance from the Dispensing Unit to the school boundary is more than 30 meters. The Distance Rule is not a matter to be considered by the District Authority as per Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002. There is no need to set aside the NOC since the school boundary is situated beyond the prohibited distance of 30 metres from the dispensing unit of the petroleum outlet. It is well settled that the local residents have no right to be heard in the NOC proceedings and they have no challenge to the establishment of the petroleum retail outlet.

I have considered the contentions.

As per the original location of the dispensing unit, it is situated within the prohibited distance of 30 meters from the nearby school boundary. Ext.P14 NOC was granted on the basis of a Plan produced by the Respondent No.11 showing the said location. It is subsequent to the issuance of the NOC, the Respondent No.11 changed the location of the dispensing unit as per Ext.R11(c) Plan. In such case, it is for the Respondent No.4 to consider the revised plan for granting NOC. The contention of the Respondents Nos.11 and 15 that the District Authority has no right to consider the distance norms specified in Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) Guidelines is unsustainable in view of the decision of this Court in Ashwin Abraham Cherian v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. [2026 (1) KHC 172], in which it is held that Clauses in the Proforma NOC under Rule 144 authorise the District Authority to see that the petroleum outlet maintains the required distances from schools, hospitals, and other public places, considering the public safety involved and that when the CPCB has laid down the Distance Norms for petroleum outlets in its Guidelines, the District Authority is perfectly justified in considering compliance with the same while issuing NOC. Respondent No.10 has objected to the establishment of the petroleum retail outlet on the ground of road safety. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.11 is that the objection of the Respondent No.10 is based on IRC Guidelines and the objection of the Respondent No.10 is not relevant and that the Respondent No.4 has considered the question of road safety in Ext.P14. I am unable to accept the said contention. IRC Guidelines are not referred in Ext.P12 Report of the Respondent No.10. As per the Proforma NOC under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, the District Authority is bound to consider the comments of the Police Department before granting NOC. Ext.P12 Report is not seen considered in Ext.P14 Order granting NOC. Of course, if the District Authority accepts the comments of the authorities mentioned in the Proforma NOC, there is no need to discuss the comments in the Order disposing the Application for NOC. If the District Authority takes a view different from the comments of the authorities mentioned in the Proforma NOC, the District Authority has to consider the comments of such authorities.

Hence, Ext.P14 Order is liable to be set aside on the aforesaid two grounds. The Respondent No.4 has to reconsider the Application for NOC submitted by the Respondent No.11 with reference to the Revised Plan submitted by the Respondent No.11 and the Report of the Respondent No.10 after hearing the Petitioners and the Respondents Nos.11 and 15.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.15 contended that the Petitioners shall not be given the opportunity of hearing while reconsidering the Application for NOC, since it is well settled that the local residents have no right to object to the establishment of a petroleum outlet. I am unable to accept this contention also. It is well settled that consent of local residents is not required for granting NOC for a petroleum outlet; that objection of the local residents on the ground of existence of their residence is not relevant; and that NOC shall not be denied on the mere objection of the local residents. It does not mean that the local residents have no right to point out the unsuitability of the site on legal grounds. In this case also, the Petitioners, who are local residents, could substantiate the violation of distance norms and non-consideration of the Report of Respondent No.10, which was to be considered before granting NOC under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules. At the instance of the Petitioners, this Court found that the Ext.P14 Order is liable to be set aside for reconsideration of the Application for NOC. In such case, the Petitioners have every right of hearing in the proceedings for reconsideration of the Application for NOC.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed setting aside Ext.P14 Order and directing the Respondent No.4 to reconsider the Application for NOC for the limited purpose of considering the Revised Plan of the Respondent No.11 with reference to the distance from the nearby school boundary and considering Ext.P12 Report of the Respondent No.10, after hearing the Petitioners and the Respondents Nos.11 and 15. The Respondent No.4 is directed to dispose of the Application for NOC within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED WILL EXECUTED BY RAYAROTH BHASKARAN AS DOCUMENT NO-122/3/2019 DATED 6-9-2019 OF KATHIROOR SUB REGISTRY OFFICE

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO-F98/2024 AEO TLN DATED 20-11-2024 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THALASSERY NORTH

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT SKETCH PREPARED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED NIL

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO FILED BY THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER DATED 14-1-2025 ALONG WITH REPORT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT HEREIN BEARING NO-RDO TLY/2217/2024-C DATED 11-1-2025(WITHOUT SKETCH)

Exhibit P5 . TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE SKETCH DATED NIL PREPARED BY THE 11TH RESPONDENT

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21-2-2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO- 29609/2024 BY THIS HON’BLE COURT

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2025 KHC ONLINE 1170 ( ASHWIN ABRAHAM CHERIAN VS.HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED) DATED 4-11-2025

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO-C.VIII(3)125/CIRCULAR/PETROLEUM DATED 9-9-2024 ISSUED BY THE 12TH RESPONDENT

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM BEARING NO-P-13033/100/2024-EXPLOSIVE DATED 7-8-2024 ISSUED BY THE BY THE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY ALONG WITH MINUTES OF MEETING AND ITS ANNEXURES

Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 14TH RESPONDENT BEARING FILE NO.936/CC AND (P583691) DATED 9-4-2025 ALONG

Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 2-7-2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO- 35706/2024 BY THIS HON’BLE COURT

Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 10TH RESPONDENT BEARING NO-D2(B)-41397/2025/KC DATED 30-7-2025 ALONG WITH ITS TYPEWRITTEN COPY

Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION OF THE 15TH RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED NIL SUBMITTED ON 28-7-2025

Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 06-10-2025 BEARING NO-DCKNR/15970/2023-D4 TO THE 11TH RESPONDENT

Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25-6-2025 ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI IN O.A.NO-168 OF 2024

Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 1-8-2025 BEARING NO-EE/KRFB/KNR/AEE1/AP-1/2022 ISSUED BY THE KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD TO THE 15TH RESPONDENT

Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT DATED 17-11-2025 WITH INWARD NUMBER-5412015-2025

Exhibit R3(a) True copy of the judgment in wpc 35706/2024 dated 02/07/2025.

Exhibit R3(b) True copy of the report of the Tahsildar dated 16/08/2025

Exhibit R3(c) True copy of the report of the Executive Engineer, KRFB, Kannur dtd 02/09/2025

Exhibit R3(e) True copy of the Proceedings of Additional District Magistrate Dated:06-10-2025

Exhibit R3(f) True copy of the NOC Issued by the office dated 07/10/2025

Exhibit R3(d) True copy of the report of the Commissioner of Police, Kannur City dated 30/07/2025

Exhibit R15(a) True copy of the report of the Kerala Road Fund Board issued to the district collector dated 2/9/25

Exhibit R15(b) True Copy of the proceedings issuing No Objection given by the Kerala Road Fund Board dated 21/2/26

Exhibit R15(c) True copy of the approved amended plan dated 2/3/26

Exhibit R15(d) Copy of the letter issued by the Pinarayi Grama Panchayat dated 12/1/26

Exhibit R11 (a) True copy of the PESO prior approval dated 02.03.2026

Exhibit R11 (b) True copy of the original site plan dated nil

Exhibit R11 (c) True copy of the amended / redrawn site plan dated nil, in respect of which PESO prior approval was granted

Exhibit R11 (d) True copy of the layout portion of the amended / redrawn site plan dated nil

Exhibit R11 (e) True copy of the acknowledgement dated 04.11.2025 from the 8th respondent / Pinarayi Grama Panchayat for application for building permit

Exhibit R11 (f) True copy of the PESO Circular dated 09.09.2024

Exhibit R11(g) True copy of the proceedings with PESO dated 09.04.2025, attended by BPCL and the 15th respondent in the present writ petition, in which it is noted that additional safety measures shall be implemented

Exhibit R11 (h) True copy of the KSPCB Circular dated 18.02.2024

Exhibit R11 (i) True copy of the report of the Sub-Collector dated 11.01.2025