Compliance with established safety norms is paramount for public health, and earlier approvals cannot bypass stricter subsequent regulations.

JUDGMENT :

MURALEE KRISHNA S., J.

1. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.22906 of 2025 filed this writ appeal under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 26.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. Going by the pleadings in the writ petition, the appellant, who is a member of the Scheduled Caste Community, was issued with Ext.P1 Letter of Intent dated 02.09.2019 issued by the 4^th respondent Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd. for establishing a petroleum retail outlet in Alappuzha district, Kerala, following due advertisement and selection process. Based on the Letter of Intent, the 4^th respondent applied for a No Objection Certificate (‘NOC’ for short) before the 2^nd respondent, District Collector, as per Ext.P2 application dated 04.09.2019. The petroleum retail outlet was proposed to be installed in the land situated in Re.Sy.No.282/11-1 of Kadakkarappally Village in Cherthala Taluk. The 4^th respondent company obtained Ext.P4 approval/licence dated 30.10.2019 for the site/layout/construction of the proposed petrol pump from the 5^th respondent. Except the Public Works Department, all other authorities submitted their reports as directed before the 2^nd respondent. However, the Public Works Department failed to do so, citing the adoption of IRC norms for granting NOC for petroleum outlets.

3. The appellant states that she filed W.P(C)No.15779 of 2020 before this Court seeking consideration of the application for NOC filed by her, and by Ext.P5 judgment dated 04.08.2020, this Court directed the 2^nd respondent to consider and pass orders in that application within six weeks. Thereafter, the District Police Chief, Alappuzha, submitted Ext.P6 report dated 07.09.2020, citing objections from a nearby Government L.P. School and neighbouring family, raising objections against issuing the NOC. The District Supply Officer, Alappuzha, also submitted Ext.P8 report dated 16.09.2019, similar to that of Ext.P6 report of the District Police Chief. The Public Works Department by Ext.P7 report dated 09.09.2020 recommended the issuance of NOC, and so also the Sub Collector, Alappuzha, by Ext.P9 report dated 28.09.2020, recommended the issuance of NOC. No Objection Certificates were obtained from the 3^rd respondent and also from the Fire and Rescue Service.

3.1. The appellant further states that despite obtaining all other mandatory approvals, including PESO site clearance dated 30.10.2019, her application was delayed, and rejected multiple times, finally by Ext.P22 order dated 23.03.2025 of the 2^nd respondent. Ext.P22 order cites non-compliance with a condition introduced via Ext.P21 circular dated 21.04.2021 issued by the 3^rd respondent, which stipulates that the construction of the petroleum outlet must have been commenced before 07.01.2020 following PESO approval. This condition, however, is fundamentally flawed when applied to the appellant’s case. It is the further case of the appellant that, as per Rule 5(4) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019, no construction of a petroleum outlet can legally be undertaken without the prior issuance of NOC by the District Magistrate. Thus, the requirement that construction must have preceded the NOC is inherently contradictory and imposes an impossible precondition on the appellant. Therefore, by contending that the impugned Ext.P22 order which insists post facto compliance with an impracticable requirement is against the settled principles of administrative fairness, prospective application of norms and raising an apprehension that even upon obtaining the NOC, the 5^th respondent may unjustly apply subsequent siting criteria introduced