SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Ker) 151

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. Natarajan, Johnson John, JJ.
The Town Planner – Petitioner
Versus
T.M.Biju – Respondent
W.A Nos.1742 &1482 of 2022
Decided On : 05-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Smt. Deepa K.R- Government Pleader
For the Respondent: Sri. Govind G. Nair, Sri.Krishna Prasad, Sri.Balu Tom, Sri. M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, Shri.K.P.Harish, Sc, Smt.Sindhu S Kamath, Shri. M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, Shri.K.John Mathai, Sri.Joson Manavalan, Sri.Kuryan Thomas, Shri.Paulose C. Abraham, Shri.Raja Kannan, Smt.Nayanpally Ramola

The Petroleum Rules, 2002 provide exemptions that override local building regulations, affirming no prior permission is needed for relocating fuel tanks within licensed premises.

Headnote:(A) Petroleum Act, 1934 - Section 31 - Petroleum Rules, 2002 - Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2019 - Construction and location of petrol tanks - The court held that the Petroleum Rules provide for exemptions from local municipal regulations concerning fuel tank location and construction, confirming no prior permission is required for relocating within licensed premises. The municipal notice halting construction was quashed. (Paras 6, 21, 24)

(B) Legal Principle - The provisions of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 override the Kerala Municipality Building Rules concerning the construction and location of fuel tanks. (Paras 20, 23)

Facts of the case:
A retail petrol dealership ran by the first respondent was served a notice by the Municipality halting construction due to alleged permit violations pertaining to tank relocation. The learned single judge quashed the notice.

Findings of Court:
The court affirmed the single judge's ruling that no permission was necessary for utilizing the licensed premises as per the Petroleum Rules.

Issues: Whether the Petroleum Act overrides municipal building regulations, and the validity of the issued stop-work notice.

Ratio Decidendi: The exemptions under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules do not contradict the Petroleum Rules; hence, the municipality cannot enforce local building regulations concerning the relocation of fuel tanks within licensed operations.

Result: Both appeals are dismissed.

Table of Content
1. judiciary presents facts of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. municipality's concerns about construction permission. (Para 4 , 5)
3. contention regarding the exemption of construction rules. (Para 6 , 7)
4. counterarguments regarding planning permissions and landlord objections. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
5. legal questions regarding jurisdiction of petroleum rules. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
6. authority and jurisdiction of petroleum regulations over municipal rules. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
7. exemption clauses in municipal rules in effect. (Para 20 , 21)
8. ruling on application of petroleum regulations and dismissal of the appeals. (Para 23 , 24 , 25)

JUDGMENT :

K. N atarajan, J .

W.A No. 1742 of 2022 is filed by the Town Planner, Kannur as against the judgment dated 06.10.2022 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 26853 of 2022.

2. Whereas, W.A No. 1482 of 2022 is filed by the Kuthuparamba Municipality, Kannur as against the same judgment passed by the learned single Judge of this Court as stated above.

3. We have heard the arguments of Smt. Deepa K.R, learned Special Government Pleader, Sri. K.P Harish, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Kuthuparamba Municipality, Sri. Jason Manavalan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Sri. Govind G. Nair and Sri. Krishna Prasad, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. The case of the parties before the learned single Judge of this Court is that the 1st respondent, who is the writ petitioner, is said to be running a retail dealership of petrol bunk operated under the respondent No. 2, Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) within the territorial limits of Kuthuparamba Municipality (hereinafter referred to as ‘Municipality’) and obtained the letter of intent from the IOC and was running the outlet from 2009 onwards. Subsequently, there was a leakage in the tank containing the motor spirit (petrol) and at the instruction of IOC after inspection, the petitioner is said to be constructing an outer concrete wall to insert the storage tank. When the work was in progress, the Municipality issued Ext.P4 notice for stopping the construction, contending that no permission was obtained for the construction and contended that there is a master plan for widening the Kannur-Coorg road. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the notice issued by the Municipality.

5. A rival contention was raised by the Municipality that constructing a new concrete tank without obtaining necessary approval as required under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules , is a violation of the Rules and therefore, the Municipality is justified in taking action and stopping the construction.

6. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4 in W.A. No.1482 of 2022 who are the landlords, also objected the construction and he also raised a contention that no permission was obtained from the licensing authority as per Rule 146(1) of Petroleum Rules , 2002. Considering the aspect, the writ petitioner has strenuously contended that an exemption is provided under Rule 47(1) of Kerala Municipality Building Rules , 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ KMBR ’), which stipulates that the location and or construction of fuel tank and vent-pipe shall be governed by the provisions of the Petroleum Rules ,2002, and therefore, the question of obtaining permission from the Municipality for relocating the tank does not arise. Considering the above aspect, the learned single Judge of this Court quashed the notice issued by the Municipality as per Ext.P4 and Ext. R2(f).

7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, two separate appeals were filed by the Municipality as well as the Town Planner, Kannur after obtaining leave of this Court. The learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality strenuously contented that even though Rule 47(1) of KMBR provides for exemption, the re- location of the construction or the change in the location of the fu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top