A No Objection Certificate for establishing a Petroleum Retail Outlet can be issued if the applicant is in lawful possession of the site through a leasehold arrangement, despite objections from nearby residents.

JUDGMENT :

M.A. ABDUL HAKHIM, J.

1. The Petitioner claims to be the owner of 10.2 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.300/5 in Block No.15 of Kadampanadu Village in Adoor Taluk and the residential building thereon. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the issuance of Ext.P11 No Objection Certificate under Rule 144 of the PETROLEUM RULES , 2002, by the Respondent No.3 in his capacity as the District Magistrate to the Respondent No.4/Oil Marketing Company to establish a Petroleum Retail Outlet in a property situated near to his property. The Respondent No.4 obtained Ext.P11 No Objection Certificate to enable the Respondent No.6/Service Co-operative Bank to establish the Petroleum Retail Outlet as a dealer of Respondent No.4 in 12.14 Ares of land in Re-Survey Nos.300/6 & 300/7 of Kadampanad Village, which is covered by Ext.P2 registered Lease Deed executed by its landowner in favour of the Respondent No.6.

2. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P11 No Objection Certificate to declare that the Respondent No.4 does not have the competency to apply for No Objection Certificate under Rule 144 of the PETROLEUM RULES as the Respondent No.4 is not in lawful possession of the applied site and to declare that the said site is not suitable for establishing a Petroleum Retail Outlet as the same does not meet the requirements contemplated in Rule 144 of the PETROLEUM RULES as well as Appendix-IB and Appendix-V of Ext.P1(b) Brochure.

3. The Respondent No.3 has filed a Counter Affidavit dated 21.10.2025, the Respondent Nos.4 & 5 filed a Counter Affidavit dated 14.10.2025 and the Respondent No.6 has filed a Counter Affidavit dated 23.10.2025, opposing the prayers in the Writ Petition. The Petitioner has filed two Reply Affidavits dated 22.10.2025, controverting the contentions in the Counter Affidavits filed by Respondent No.3 and Respondent Nos.4 & 5, and a Reply Affidavit dated 30.10.2025, controverting the contentions in the Counter Affidavit filed by Respondent No.6.

4. I heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri.D.Kishore, the learned Government Pleader for the Respondent No.3, Smt. Sheeba G., the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5, Sri.M.R.Hariraj, instructed by Adv. Sri. Nithin George, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.6, Sri. Jacob P. Alex, and the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.7.

5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that as per Rule 144 of the PETROLEUM RULES , read with the Proforma No Objection Certificate therein, the Application for No Objection Certificate has to be submitted by a person who is in lawful possession of the applied site. The Application for No Objection Certificate was submitted by Respondent No.4 and Respondent No.4 is not in lawful possession of the applied site. Ext.P2 Lease Deed would reveal that the person in lawful possession of the land mentioned therein is the Respondent No.6. Ext.P2 provides that the lessee therein, namely, Respondent No.6, shall have the right to sublease the premises to the Oil Marketing Company during and up to the period of the lease by executing a separate registered lease deed. Admittedly, no registered Lease Deed is executed in favour of Respondent No.4 and the Respondent No.4 is incompetent to apply for the No Objection Certificate. Ext.P1 Advertisement would reveal the type of site for the subject Petroleum Retail Outlet is dealer- controlled. In Ext.P1(b) Brochure for Selection of Dealers, it is provided that for Dealer-owned sites, the Applicant should ensure that the land arranged by the Applicant is either registered in the Applicant's name or leased in favour of the Applicant and that for Corporation-owned sites, the Applicant s