Authorities must adhere to regulatory guidelines when issuing permissions; however, prior involvement in proceedings mitigates claims of prejudice due to non-hearing.

JUDGMENT :

M.A. Abdul Hakhim, J.

1. The parties are the same in both these Writ Petitions. W.P.(C) No.38776 of 2025 is treated as the leading case, referring to the documents as per the markings therein.

2. The Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are objecting to the establishment of a Petroleum Retail Outlet by the Respondent No.11 in their neighbouring property, having an extent of 22.80 Ares in Re-Sy. No.367/7-13 of Perayam Village in Kollam District, situated on the immediate western side of Kollam-Theni NH-183, belonging to one Mr. R.Bahulayen, as a dealer of the Respondent No.13 Petroleum Marketing Company.

3. W.P.(C) No.27507 of 2025 is filed challenging Ext.P1 N.O.C. issued by the Respondent No.3 to the Respondent No.13 under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, and Ext.P2 Provisional Permission for access to the Highway issued by the Respondent No.6 to the Respondent No.13 under Section 28 of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002, and seeking direction to the Respondent No.1 to dispose of Ext.P19 Appeal filed against Ext.P1 N.O.C.

4. During the pendency of W.P.(C) No.27507 of 2025, the Respondent No.6 passed Ext.P23 Order granting Final Permission for access to the Highway to the Respondent No.13, and hence the Petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.38776 of 2025 challenging Ext.P23 Order.

5. The Respondent No.11 individually and the Respondent Nos.12 and 13 jointly filed Counter Affidavits in W.P.(C) No.38776 of 2025 opposing the prayers.

6. I heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Sri. K. Mohanakannan, learned Government Pleader, Sri. Tony Augustine for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 to 8, Sri. Aditya Shenoy, learned Central Government Counsel for the Respondent No.9, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.10, Sri. Sajith Panicker, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.11, Sri. P. Deepak, instructed by Adv. Sri. Jomy K. Jose, and the learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.12 &13, Sri. Nithin George.

7. All the Respondents supported the establishment of the Petroleum Retail Outlet by the Respondent No.11 as the dealer of Respondent No.13.

8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that Ext.P23 Order was passed without considering Ext.P14 Report of the very same authority, which says that the Petroleum Retail Outlet does not conform to the Guidelines issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) for the grant of permission for construction of access to fuel stations (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MoRTH Guidelines’). The Ext.P14 is based on Ext.P9 Report of the Respondent No.5. Ext.P9 Report was submitted when the Respondent No.6 sought for a Report from the Respondent No.5 when the Petitioners submitted their Petition and the Respondent No.13 submitted an Application for extension of one year Time in Ext.P2 Provisional Permission. Ext.P23 was passed without hearing the Petitioners on whose Petition the Ext.P14 Report was prepared, finding substance in the contentions raised in the Petition. Learned Counsel invited my attention to Note (b) under Clauses 2.3 and 3.0 (ii) of Appendix I to the MoRTH Guidelines. Note (b) under Clause 2.3 provides that in the case of distance from intersection with any category of road, the road means paved carriageway of 3.0 M width and having a length of minimum 300 M and above irrespective of the category of the road. Clause 3.0 (ii) provides that it should be ensured that the location of the proposed fuel station does not interfere with future improvements of the highway and the nearby intersecti