DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

Introduction:

1. The petitioners in both the writ petitions claim to reside next to the sixth and the seventh respondent's property, where the fifth respondent-Corporation intends to establish a retail petroleum outlet. The petitioners assert that the Corporation has been trying to establish the retail outlet with utter disregard to the safety norms and in gross violation of the Building Rules. Has the 5th respondent, a Public-Sector Undertaking, been establishing the retail outlet violating the law?

2. Because both the writ petitions raise common issues against the same respondents, I have decided to dispose them of together under a common judgment.

Facts:

3. Respondents 6 and 7 own a piece of property in Nellikode Ward of Kozhikode Corporation. They leased it out that property for 30 years to the 5th respondent, the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ("the Corporation") for establishing a petroleum retail-outlet.

4. The sole petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 28370 of 2016 and the three petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 32566 of 2016 are the neighbours: they allegedly live next to the property leased out to the Corporation. These neighbours filed the writ petitions questioning the Corporation's establishing its retail outlet on the leased property. Their grievance stems from what is said to be the Corporation's violating the safety norms.

5. Ext.P2 in W.P. (C) No. 28370 of 2016 contains the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India. Those guidelines fix the procedural parameters on how to establish, say, a retail petroleum-outlet. Guideline 4.5 of Ext.P2 concerns urban structures; it mandates that the intersection with any category of the road (despite the carriage width) must be 100 mtrs., from the retail outlet intended to be established. The Corporation has violated this guideline, maintain the petitioners. Their other, and more important, grievance is that the Corporation has been violating the building rules as found in the Kerala Municipality Rules.

Submissions:

Petitioners:

6. In the above factual background, Sri P.P. Balan, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.28370 of 2016, has initially contended that the Corporation has not maintained, as seen from the sanctioned plan, 100 mtrs., distance from the existing intersection of the road nearby. Therefore, the Corporation's establishing the retail outlet violates guideline 4.5.2 of Ext.P2.

7. Taking me through the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999, ("the Building Rules") the learned Senior Counsel, initially, elaborated on the provisions; especially, the definitional distinction of a building in its myriad forms. "Building" as defined in Rule 2(l), according to the learned Senior Counsel, is all encompassing. Later, he has drawn my attention to Rule 30 of the Rules. Reading that rule with Rule 59, the learned Senior Counsel would contend that the retail outlet proposed to be established by the Corporation is a hazardous building or structure. So the Corporation must follow strict safety- measures, including the distance norm.

8. Asserting that Rule 2 and Rule 30 (3) (m) Group I (2) read together, there is no room for any dispute that the entire retail outlet, including the storage tank, is to be compendiously called a building. The learned Senior Counsel has further drawn my attention to Rule 59 (3) to hammer home his contention that the distance ought to be 7.5 metres from the nearest boundary in any direction.

9. Eventually, when queried about the impact of Petroleum Rules 1976 on the distance norm, the learned Senior Counsel has asserted that the Corporation cannot disregard the distance norms prescribed in the Building Rules under an excuse that the Petroleum Rules prescribe a different norm. According to him, the provisions must be read harmoniously.

10. The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the distance norm of 1.5 meters specified in Form 14 applies to the class-C fuels as has b