The court established that while Indian Road Congress Guidelines are not mandatory in Tamil Nadu, they must be considered for public safety when processing applications for No Objection Certificates.

JUDGMENT :

G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

The batch of writ appeals and the writ petitions centers around the issue of No Objection Certificate(NOC) by the Highways Department and the Revenue Department for commissioning the petrol and diesel outlets by the dealers appointed by the Oil Corporation.

2.The sum and substance of the case in short is that, the petroleum companies have appointed dealers for distribution of petroleum products after scrutinising their eligibility and the potential to run the business. After receipt of a letter of intent from the Oil Corporation, the dealers have approached the respective authorities to issue No Objection Certificate for the commission of their outlets. Their request were rejected either citing Indian Road Congress Guidelines 2009(in short IRC guideline) or the subsequent G.O passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu Highways and Minor Ports(H.N2) Department in G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 24.02.2022 or G.O.Ms.No.121, dated 12.04.2023. The dealers, being aggrieved, had approached the High Court invoking Article 226 either seeking writ of mandamus or writ of certiorarified mandamus as the case may be. Those writ petitions were allowed. Being aggrieved, the State has preferred the intra Court appeal in W.A(MD)Nos.1023 of 2022 and 306, 1023, 1413 and 1858 of 2023.

3.W.P(MD)No.5590 of 2025 is filed by the dealers seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the DRO and The Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, to issue No Objection Certificate on his pending application. Since the matter had already been pending before the Division Bench, the learned single Judge has directed to tag this writ petition along with the writ appeals dealing with the same subject matter. As a result, this writ petition in W.P(MD)No.5590 of 2025 is tagged along with the appeals.

4.The facts in writ petition W.P(MD)No.4969 of 2023 is slightly on a different footing. It is a case where 'No Objection Certificate' was issued in favour of the dealer Mr.Subbaiah Lakshmanaa by the District Revenue Officer. Challenging the same, the Public Interest Litigation filed citing that 'No Objection Certificate' to the dealer was issued without strict compliance of IRC guideline.

5.The point for consideration in all these cases is whether the Indian Road Congress Guidelines 12/2009 and the Government Order G.O.Ms.No. 25, dated 24.02.2022 have strict force of law and mandatory or recommendatory in nature.

6.In Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Others -vs- Arti Devi Dangi and Another , reported in 2016 (15) SCC 480 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that IRC Guidelines are mandatory. However, in a subsequent judgment, the Division Bench of this Court in W.P(MD)No.19218 of 2019 etc batch cases( Durairaj Venkatachalu -vs- Chief Secretary and Others ), distinguished Arti Devi Dangi case, by pointing the State of Madhya Pradesh has adopted the IRC Guidelines and framed Rules and sub Rules. Therefore, insofar as the State of Madhya Pradesh, the guidelines of IRC has force of law, whereas in Tamil Nadu in the absence of any such Rules, the IRC Guidelines can only be recommendatory in nature but not mandatory in nature.

7.Earlier in Tamil Nadu prescribing minimum distance restrictions for establishing petroleum outlets, guidelines was issued through G.O.Ms.No. 256, dated 22.12.2015. After spate of judgments which has distinguished Arti Devi Dangi's case and directions issued by the Court, to issue “No Objection Certificate”, the distance restriction imposed in IRC Guidelines 12/2009 was not able to be enf