CPCB Siting Criteria's 'Schools' Does Not Include 'Colleges' for Petrol Pump Distance Rule: Kerala High Court - 2025-09-03

Kerala High Court Clarifies 'Schools' in CPCB Siting Criteria for Petrol Pumps Does Not Extend to 'Colleges'

ERNAKULAM: In a significant ruling on the interpretation of environmental regulations, the Kerala High Court has held that the term 'schools' in the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) guidelines for setting up new petrol pumps cannot be expansively interpreted to include 'colleges'. The court quashed an order by the Controller of Explosives that had rejected an application for a new retail outlet based on its proximity to a college.

The judgment was delivered by Justice S. Manu in a writ petition, Bindhu Kuniparambath vs The Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Ors. (WP(C) NO. 12226 OF 2025), challenging the rejection of approval for a new Indian Oil retail outlet in Mananthavady Town.

Case Background

The petitioner, Bindhu Kuniparambath, had her application for a new petrol pump approved by the Indian Oil Corporation. After receiving initial approvals, including a No Objection Certificate from the District Collector, her final application was rejected by the Controller of Explosives (2nd respondent).

The rejection order, referred to as Ext.P5, cited three primary reasons: 1. The proposed site was less than 30 meters from the boundary of Newman College. 2. The area was in a "mixed zone," and the authority was not satisfied that it was not a designated residential area. 3. The site was generally non-compliant with CPCB guidelines dated 7.1.2020.

Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner approached the High Court.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner’s counsel argued that the Controller's reasons were unsustainable. It was contended that the CPCB guidelines specifically mention "schools," "hospitals (10 beds and above)," and "residential areas." The guidelines do not include "colleges." Furthermore, the counsel asserted that the certificate from the local municipality clearly stated the site was in a "mixed zone" and not a "designated residential area," making the Controller's doubts on this point illogical.

Respondents' Arguments: The Deputy Solicitor General, representing the central authorities, argued that the term "schools" should be interpreted broadly to include all educational institutions, including colleges, to uphold the safety intent of the guidelines. It was also contended that the petitioner had obtained initial approval by misrepresentation, as the college's boundary wall was not shown in the submitted drawing. Finally, the respondents claimed that two certificates issued by the Municipality Secretary regarding the land's zoning were contradictory.

Court's Analysis and Key Findings

The High Court meticulously analyzed Paragraph ‘H’ of the CPCB's siting criteria. Justice Manu observed that the guidelines are specific in their wording.

The court noted, “It should be noted that only two distinct types of institutions, schools and hospitals (10 beds and above) have been specifically mentioned in the distance criteria... If the intention was as canvassed, nothing stopped the CPCB from bringing other types of educational institutions also within the ambit of paragraph ‘H’ by expressly mentioning the same or by employing the generic expression 'educational institutions' rather than specifically using the word 'schools'.”

The court's reasoning was further bolstered by a statement filed by the CPCB itself in a separate matter before the National Green Tribunal (NGT). The CPCB had submitted to the NGT that "colleges have not been included [in the guidelines] considering schools and hospitals (10 beds and above), as sensitive locations."

In light of this clarification from the author of the guidelines, the High Court concluded that it was not for any other authority to give an "expansive interpretation" to include colleges. The court held: “The Controller of Explosives cannot refuse approval for starting a new outlet... for the reason that a college is situated within the distance limits stipulated in the guidelines... The distance rule... would apply only in the cases of schools, hospitals with more than 10 beds and designated residential areas.”

On the issue of land zoning, the court found no contradiction in the municipal certificates. It observed that both certificates confirmed the site was not a residential area, with the second one simply using the precise language required by the CPCB guidelines. The court dismissed this reason for rejection as "fallacious." The third reason for rejection was deemed a vague reiteration of the first two.

Final Decision

Finding the Controller of Explosives' rejection order (Ext.P5) to be legally unsustainable, the Kerala High Court set it aside. The court directed the 2nd respondent to reconsider the petitioner's application afresh within one month, keeping in mind the findings and observations in the judgment. The petitioner was also granted liberty to submit any necessary documents or clarifications.