Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 2108
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S. MANU, J.
Bindhu Kuniparambath W/o Jitheesh Panicker - Appellant
Versus
The Joint Chief Controller of Explosives Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 12226 of 2025
Decided On : 18-08-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : R. Sunil Kumar, A. Salini Lal, Jinu P. Binu
For the Respondents: O.M. Shalina, Noel Jacob, Raajesh S. Subrahmanian, M.S. Amal Dharsan, Thushara James, Tony Augustine, Santharam P.
CPCB guidelines do not classify colleges as sensitive locations, thus proximity issues do not apply; rejection of approval based on such criteria was legally unsustainable.
Headnote:(A) Petroleum Rules, 2002 - Guidelines issued by Central Pollution Control Board dated 07.01.2020 - Approval for retail outlet rejected based on proximity to educational institutions - The guidelines explicitly mention schools and hospitals but not colleges as sensitive institutions - The rejection based on non-compliance with distance criteria is unsustainable. (Paras 10, 11, 12)
(B) Misrepresentation - Approval obtained by not disclosing relevant site information - The claim of misrepresentation regarding the boundary wall is unproven, as certificates from local authority confirm site suitability. (Paras 5, 11)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner applied for a retail outlet site, initially approved but later rejected by the Controller of Explosives on grounds of proximity to a college, citing CPCB guidelines.
Findings of Court:
The rejection was found unsupported and lacking justification; the siting criteria do not apply to colleges. The prior approvals did not indicate residential designation.
Issues: Were the reasons for rejection legally sustainable under CPCB guidelines?
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the CPCB guidelines do not extend to colleges as sensitive locations, leading to the conclusion that the rejection is untenable. Result : Ext.P5 set aside, directing a fresh decision on the application.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of application and approval process (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments against the rejection of application (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. explanation of cpcb guidelines and norms (Para 6 , 9) |
| 4. specific siting criteria for new petrol pumps (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. court's analysis of guidelines application (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. conclusion and directives for re-evaluation of application (Para 13) |
JUDGMENT :
S. MANU, J.
1. The 3rd respondent company invited applications for starting retail outlets of petroleum products at various places including Mananthavady Town. Petitioner applied, offering 30 cents of property in Re.Sy.No.683/2 of Mananthavady Village and the application was approved by the 3rd respondent.
2. Third respondent approached the 1st respondent for initial approval and on 28.3.2024 approval was granted. On 19.4.2024, No Objection Certificate under Rule 144 of the PETROLEUM RULES ,2002, was issued by the District Collector. An application was filed before the 2nd respondent on 27.1.2025 for approval. It was rejected by the 2nd respondent on 24.2.2025 by Ext.P5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court. A statement was filed by the learned Deputy Solicitor General on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. The Central Pollution Control Board also filed a statement.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,the learned Deputy Solicitor General for respondents 1 and 2, the learned Standing Counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 6 and 7.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed Ext.P5 decision of the Controller of Explosives contending that the reasons stated in Ext.P5 for rejecting the requests are not sustainable. She pointed out that the Chief Controller stated in Ext.P5 that the distance between the boundary of Newman college and the retail outlet is less than 30 meters. Further the Controller stated that the proposed site is falling under mixed zone. The Controller also stated that it was not specified in the certificate that the proposed site is not a designated residential area. Controller added that the site is not compliant of CPCB guidelines dated 7.1.2020. She pointed out that the CPCB guidelines dated 7.1.2020 insists only that the distance between new retail outlet from schools, hospitals (10 beds and above) and residential area designated as per local laws shall be less than 30 m. She submitted that colleges are not included in the siting criteria. She further submitted that when the Secretary of the local authority certified that the proposed site is in a mixed zone, reasoning of the Controller that there is no confirmation that the proposed site is not within a designated residential area is illogical. She also stated that the Controller has not pointed out any reasons for his conclusion that the proposed site is not compliant of the CPCB guidelines.
5. Learned Deputy Solicitor General submitted that the petitioner obtained Ext.P2 approval dated 28.3.2024 without showing the boundary wall of the college in the drawing submitted with the application for approval. Hence, the approval was obtained by misrepresentation. It was also submitted that application dated 28.1.2025 was rejected by letter dated 29.1.2025. The said letter has been produced as Annexure-R1(b). Thereafter, an application was submitted on 22.2.2025. As per the siting criteria, minimum distance of 30 m. should be there from educational institutions. However, a college is located within the said distance from the proposed site. She further submitted that the Secretary of the Municipality affirmed only that the proposed site is falling within a mixed zone. It was not confirmed that the area is not a designated residential area. Later, by Ext.P7, the Secretary of the Municipality confirmed that the proposed site is not a designated residential area as per local laws. She contended that the two certificates issued by the Secretary are contradictory. She hence submitted that
