Rajesh.K vs The Additional District Magistrate

M.A.Abdul Hakhim, J

Petitioner intends to start a Petroleum Retail Outlet as a Dealer of the Respondent No.3–Oil Marketing Company on the basis of Ext.P1 Letter of Intent issued by the Respondent No.3. The Respondent No.3 had submitted Application for No Objection Certificate under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, in order to enable the Petitioner to  establish  the  Petroleum  Retail  Outlet  and  the  same  was rejected by the Respondent No.1 as per Ext.P3 Order. Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P3 Order.

The Respondent No.1 has filed Counter  Affidavit opposing the prayers in the Writ Petition and supporting Ext.P3 Order.

I heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri. Jinu P. Binu, the learned Government Pleader, Sri. Riyal Devassy, for Respondents Nos.1 & 2 and the learned Standing Counsel for  the Respondent No.3,  Sri. Poulose C. Abraham.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Respondent  No.1  illegally  rejected  the  Application  for  NOC on two unsustainable grounds. The first is that the proposed site  does  not  satisfy  the  stopping  site  distance  as  required under  the  Indian  Roads  Congress  (IRC)  Guidelines,  relying on the Report of the Public Works Department, and the second is that there are five houses within a radius of 50 meters from the proposed site. Learned Counsel contended that the IRC Guidelines are not applicable for considering the  suitability  of the site  for  a Petroleum Retail  Outlet under Rule  144  of  the  Petroleum  Rules,  2002.  Ext.P7  Guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board also do not mandate satisfaction of IRC Guidelines for the site. The existence of residences within  50 meters is  irrelevant, and what is relevant is the existence of residential zone designated  as  per  local  laws  within  the  prohibited  distance. Ext.P8  issued  by  the  Grama  Panchayath  certifies  that there is no designated residential area within the prohibited distance  of  50  Meters.  Learned  Counsel  cited  the  decision of this Court in Jasmine Sirajudeen v. The State of Kerala and Others [2020: KER:14042], the  decision  of  the  Allahabad  High Court in Deepak Agarwal v. State of U.P. and Others [2014 Supreme (All) 710] and the decision of the Madras High Court in A. Periyasamy  (Deceased)  and Another  v.  The  Deputy  Director,  North- Cum Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Revenue, Puducherry and Others [2021 Supreme (Mad) 1356] in support of his contentions. Learned Counsel concluded his arguments, praying to set aside Ext.P3 Order and to direct the Respondent No.1 to grant NOC to the Respondent No.3 for starting Petroleum Retail Outlet by the Petitioner in the applied site.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3 advanced arguments supporting the contentions of the Petitioner.

On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader contended that the Respondent No.1 had considered the comments of the Public Works Department as required under  Rule  144  of  the  Petroleum  Rules,  2002,  and  rejected the Application for NOC. Public Works Department submitted its comments to the Respondent No.1 after considering the suitability of the site, taking into account the road safety aspect. The Public Works Department is perfectly justified in ensuring IRC Guidelines when it considers the road safety aspect of the site. The learned Government Pleader prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

I have considered the rival contentions.

Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, mandates the District Authority to obtain comments from various authorities mentioned in Clause (1) in the Pro forma No Objection Certificate provided under Sub-Rule (7) therein. As per Sub-Clause (d) in Clause (1) in the Pro forma No Objection  Certificate, Comments  from the  National Highway Authority of India or Public Works Department or any authority concerned regarding road safety and road alignment  and  road  access  conformity  is  to  be  obtained.  It does  not  require  compliance  with  IRC  Guidelines. It is  seen from Ext.P3 Order that the Respondent No.1, with reference to the Report of the Public Works Department, entered a finding  that  the  site  does  not  meet  the  requirements  under IRC SP 73-2018. The Division Bench of this Court in the decision in Jasmine Sirajudeen (supra) has found that IRC Guidelines have been issued by an Association/Society registered under the Societies Registration Act,1860, and that the IRC Guidelines for road safety have been withdrawn on  01.12.2019.  The  Division  Bench  of  this  Court set  aside the common judgment of the learned Single Judge upholding the Order of the District Authority, placing reliance on  IRC  Guidelines,  finding  that,  had  the  withdrawal  of  IRC Guidelines  been  brought  to  the  notice of  the  Writ Court, the common judgment dismissing the Writ Petitions for not satisfying IRC Guidelines would not have been passed. In light of this decision, IRC Guidelines are not available for consideration to the District Authority considering an Application under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002. In the  decisions  of  the Allahabad  High  Court  in  Deepak Agarwal (supra)  and  the  Madras  High  Court  in  A.  Periyasamy  (supra), it is  specifically  held  that  the  IRC  Guidelines  do  not  have  any statutory force and are not mandatory and the same are not to be followed in the matter of issuance of No Objection Certificate by the District  Authority to operate a Petroleum Retail Outlet. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken  by  the Allahabad  High  Court  and  Madras  High  Court in this regard. In that view of the matter, Ext.P3 Order rejecting the Application for NOC submitted by the Respondent No.3 is liable to be set aside and the Respondent No.1 is  liable  to be directed to reconsider the application after obtaining a fresh Report from the PWD Department.  Of  course,  the  PWD  Department  has  to  report the suitability of the premises on an independent consideration with reference to road safety and road alignment and road access conformity dehors the IRC Guidelines.

The  other  reason  stated  in  Ext.P3  Order  is  the  existence  of five houses within the prohibitory distance of 50 Meters. Going by the Central Pollution Control Board Guidelines, the existence of residential houses is not a relevant consideration and what is relevant is the existence of a residential area designated as per local laws. Ext.P8 Certificate issued by the Grama Panchayat shows that there is no designated residential area within the prohibited distance  of  50  Meters.  Hence,  the  rejection  of  the  NOC  on the  ground  of  the  existence  of  five  houses  within  50  Meters is also not sustainable.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside Ext.P3 Order and directing the Respondent No.1 to reconsider Ext.P2 Application for NOC submitted by the Respondent No.3, after obtaining a fresh Report from the PWD  Department,  which  in  turn  shall  submit  a report  as  to the  suitability  of  the  premises  with  reference  to  road  safety and  road  alignment  and  road  access  conformity  dehors  the IRC Guidelines.