CPCB guidelines on distance norms are mandatory for the issuance of No Objection Certificates for petroleum outlets, prioritizing public safety.

JUDGMENT :

M.A. ABDUL HAKHIM, J.

1. Petitioner filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P9 Order passed by the Respondent No.2/Additional District Magistrate, refusing to grant a No Objection Certificate to the Respondent No.1/Petroleum Company for starting a Retail Petroleum Outlet by the Petitioner.

2. In response to the Advertisement dated 25.11.2018 issued by the Respondent No.1, the Petitioner applied for a Retail Petroleum Outlet Dealership at Chottanikkara on a land having 25x25 Sq. Meters in Survey Nos.167/20 & 167/38 of Kureekkad Village in Kanayannoor Taluk, belonging to his parents, which he obtained under lease. The Respondent No.1 issued Ext.P1 Letter of Intent dated 13.06.2019 to the Petitioner proposing to offer the Retail Petroleum Outlet. The Chief Regional Manager of the Respondent No.1 submitted an Application dated 29.07.2019 for a No Objection Certificate to the Respondent No.2 for the said outlet as required under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002. The said Application was rejected by the Respondent No.2 as per Ext.P2 Order dated 10.07.2020, holding that there are residential buildings within a radius of 30 meters from the proposed site and that the request for the petroleum outlet cannot be considered in the light of the report of the Pollution Control Board that the complaints against the outlet are genuine. In the meantime, the Respondent No.1 obtained Ext.P6 Certificate dated 28.01.2022 from the Regional Officer of the Fire and Rescue Services Department stating that it has no objection to granting a license for the outlet, finding that the site is suitable for establishing a petroleum outlet. The Chief Regional Manager of the Respondent No.1 again approached the Respondent No.2 by filing Ext.P3 Representation. Ext.P3 Representation was rejected as per Ext.P4 Order of the Respondent No.2 dated 16.04.2023, holding that the proposed petroleum outlet poses a grave threat to public safety. Petitioner challenged Ext.P4 Order before this Court in W.P.(C) No.30806/2023 and the same was allowed as per Ext.P8 judgment dt 19.10.2023, setting aside Ext.P4 Order with consequential direction to the Respondent No.2 to reconsider the Application adverting to Ext.R1(a), the Counter Affidavit of the Respondent No.1 and Ext.P5 Report and Sketch therein. Thereafter, the Respondent No.2 has passed the impugned Ext.P9 Order dated 26.01.2024 again refusing to issue a No Objection Certificate, finding that the Respondent No.1 has not adhered to the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) Distance Norms for the installation of a petroleum outlet and that the proposed petroleum outlet poses a grave threat to public safety.

3. An adjacent property owner got himself impleaded in the Writ Petition as additional Respondent No.3. The Petitioner impleaded the Kerala State Pollution Control Board and the Central Pollution Control Board as Additional Respondent Nos.4 and 5. The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed separate Counter Affidavits opposing the prayers in the Writ Petition. The Petitioner took out a Commission, and the Advocate Commissioner filed an Interim Report on 21.10.2024 and a Report on 03.12.2024.

4. I heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri. P. Ramakrishnan, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1, Sri. Paulose C. Abraham, the learned Government Pleader, Sri. Tony Augustin, for the Respondent No.2, and the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3, Sri. D. Sajeev Kumar.

5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that while considering the Application for NOC required under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, the Respondent No.2 is not under any obligation to follow the CPCB Guidelines. The retail petroleum outlets come under the green category as per the cl