Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Mad) 662

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
P.G.M. Petrol Bunk, Dealer of Indian Oil Corporation, Rep. by its Proprietor, Krishnagiri - Petitioner
Versus
The Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, Chennai. & Others - Respondent
W.P. No. 35885 of 2019 & WMP. Nos. 36795 & 36797 of 2019
Decided On : 11-03-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: V. Prakash, Senior Counsel for T. Arockia Dass for M/s. Dass & Viswa, Associates.
For the Respondents:V. Ashok Kumar, CGSC, V. Shanmuga Sundar, Special Government Pleader, Arul Dass, Government Pleader, AR.L. Sundaresan, Senior Counsel, V. Nicholas, Advocate.

The absence of appropriate rules framed by the State Government renders Indian Road Congress Guidelines non-mandatory, and the maintainability of a writ petition is contingent on the availability of statutory appeal and supporting evidence.

Headnote:
Indian Road Congress Guidelines - Setting up of Petrol Bunk - Indian Road Congress Guidelines, 2009 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Indian Road Congress Guidelines-2009, Petroleum Act and Rules - The court discussed the mandatory nature of Indian Road Congress Guidelines, the absence of statutory force in the State of Tamil Nadu, and the lack of binding statutory effect without appropriate rules framed by the State Government. The court also highlighted the absence of objection from official respondents and the lack of evidence to establish danger or public interest violation in setting up the petrol bunk by the fifth respondent.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the grant of No Objection Certificate to the fifth respondent for setting up a petrol bunk, citing violation of Indian Road Congress Guidelines and endangerment of lives. The official respondents defended the legality of the impugned order and questioned the maintainability of the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Indian Road Congress Guidelines are not mandatory in the State of Tamil Nadu, as appropriate rules incorporating the guidelines had not been framed. It also concluded that the petitioner's writ petition was not maintainable, considering the absence of statutory appeal and the lack of evidence to support the petitioner's claims.
Issues: The issues involved whether the Indian Road Congress Guidelines are mandatory and whether the petitioner's writ petition is maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Indian Road Congress Guidelines are not mandatory in the absence of appropriate rules framed by the State Government, and the petitioner's writ petition was not maintainable due to the absence of statutory appeal and supporting evidence.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were imposed. Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the 2nd respondent in Ref.No.Mu.Mu.No.25271/2019/C2 dated 20.12.2019 and quash the same as the same is arbitrary, illegal and non-est in the eyes of law.

1. The points for consideration in this writ petition are whether

(a) The Indian Road Congress Guidelines, 2009 stipulating a minimum distance of 300 meters between two petrol bunks in a non-urban rural area is mandatory.

(b) Whether a rival competitor has locus standi to challenge the No Objection Certificate issued to another competitor for setting up a petrol bunk.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the impugned order passed by the second respondent granting No Objection Certificate to the fifth respondent to set up a petrol bunk suffers from material irregularities and violates the norms and Guidelines issued by the Union Ministry of Road Transport and Highways dated 25.09.2003 as well as the Indian Road Congress Guidelines, 2009.

3. It is also the case of the petitioner that the second respondent has placed wrong reliance on the orders passed in the batch of writ petitions by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.

4. According to the petitioner, the petrol bunk proposed to be set up by the fifth respondent is within a distance of 170 meters from the petitioner's petrol bunk and hence the minimum distance criteria fixed under the Indian Road Congress Guidelines at 300 meters has been violated. According to the petitioner, this would endanger the lives of the people in and around that area as the object of those Guidelines are to ensure safe distance between the two retail outlets in order to avoid devastating effects in case of fire accidents.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that the second respondent without having regard to the safety aspect and prescribed Guidelines and order of the Division Bench of this Court has granted No Objection Certificate to the fifth respondent under the impugned order on flimsy grounds which is arbitrary and illegal.

6. It is the case of the official respondents as seen from the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent is that the

(a) Impugned order is legally correct and not arbitrary.

(b) The impugned order does not suffer from any material irregularity and does not violate the norms and Guidelines framed by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways.

(c) The impugned order has been passed based on the judgment rendered in a batch of writ petitions before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.

(d) There is no partiality in favour of any person and the second respondent has acted as per law and as per the rules laid in the Petroleum Act and Rules.

(e) The petitioner is dragging the issue for his business rivalry.

(f) The petitioner ought to have filed Statutory Appeal before the Statutory Appellate Authority but instead has filed this writ petition which is not maintainable.

(g)The third respondent is not the Authority in the matter and the remarks of the third respondent was overruled by the second respondent under the impugned order.

(h)The fourth respondent has obtained all the requisite permission to establish the subject petrol bunk in the subject land.

7. The fifth respondent which has been allotted subject petrol bunk by the fourth respondent would submit that

(a) Indian Road Congress Guidelines are not mandatory and would submit that the impugned order has been passed granting No Objection Certificate correctly by applying the decision of the Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in W.P.(MD) Nos.19218, 2661, 3678 & 705 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019 wherein it has been held that the Indian Road Congress Guidelines are not mandatory as it will get statutory force only when appropriate rules are framed by the State Government.

8. It is also their case that Circulars and Letters are just communications between officials and can never take th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(Mad) 662

The absence of appropriate rules framed by the State Government renders Indian Road Congress Guidelines non-mandatory, and the maintainability of a writ petition is contingent on the availability of statutory appeal and supporting evidence.

Cases Referred (4)