Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(AP) 17150
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J
K. VENAKAT SURESH KUMAR NAIDU – Appellant
Versus
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. – Respondent
WP 19036/2024
The Indian Road Congress guidelines for petroleum outlet distances are directory, not mandatory, and do not confer standing for business competition grievances.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Mandamus - Petition challenging the grant of No Objection Certificate for a petroleum outlet on grounds of violation of distance guidelines - The petitioner contended that the outlet's establishment within 80 meters of an existing outlet contravenes guidelines mandating a distance of 300 meters. (Paras 1-4)
(B) Legal Principles - Guidelines issued by the Indian Road Congress are directory and not mandatory, thus not binding unless statutory rules are enacted. The court emphasized that competition among businesses is beneficial for consumers. (Paras 10, 20, 21)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the issuance of a No Objection Certificate for a petrol bunk proposed within 80 meters of their existing outlet, alleging violations of safety guidelines and potential endangerment to public safety. (Paras 3-4)
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the petition, asserting that the Indian Road Congress guidelines lack statutory force and that competition does not infringe legal rights. (Paras 21-22)
Issues: The key issues included the legality of the No Objection Certificate issuance and the interpretation of the Indian Road Congress guidelines concerning distance requirements for petroleum outlets. (Paras 6, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the guidelines are not mandatory, and the petitioner lacked standing to claim harm from competition, which promotes consumer welfare. (Paras 20-21)
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
1. Originally, this writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following relief:
“To issue Writ of Mandamus declaring (a) the 1st respondent herein in proposing to establish Petroleum Outlet in Sy.No.398 of Rajampet Revenue Village, Annamayya District.
(b) the respondent authorities 3 to 5 in proposing to grant “No Objection Certificate” for retail petroleum outlet in Sy.No.398 of Rajampet Revenue Village and Rajampet Mandal, Annamayya District as arbitrary and illegal;
Consequently to direct the respondent authorities not to grant „No Objection Certificate‟ in faovour of the 1st respondent herein for establishment of above said retail petroleum outlet”
2. Vide order of this Court in I.A.No.2 of 2024 dated 19.09.2024, prayer was amended and the amended prayer reads as follows:
“ (a) the action of the 1 st respondent herein in proposing to establish Petroleum Outlet in Sy.No.398 of Rajampet Revenue Village, Annamayya District;
(b) the action of 2nd respondent herein in issuing the Letter of Intent vide Ref.No.2023/IN000237/AP/000018/4404/00006 dated 11.03.2024 and
(c) in granting No Objection Certificate vide proceedings C1/17157/2024 dated 30.08.2024 in favour of the 1st petitioner for establishment of petroleum outlet in Sy.No.398 of Rajampet Revenue Village, Annamayya District.”
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the impugned order dated 30.08.2024 passed by Respondent No.5 granting No Objection Certificate to Respondent No.1 to set up a petrol bunk suffers from material irregularities and violates the guidelines issued by the Union Ministry of Road Transport and Highways dated 25.09.2003 as well as the Indian Road Congress Guidelines, 2009.
4. According to the petitioner, the petrol bunk proposed to be set up by Respondent No.1 is within a distance of 80 meters from the petitioner‟s petrol bunk in Sy.No.398 of Rajampet Revenue Village, Annamayya District. Respondent No.5/District Revenue Officer issued „No Objection Certificate‟ to the first respondent/IOCL dated 30.08.2024 for granting license under the Petroleum Rules, 2002. Hence, the minimum distance criteria fixed under the Indian Road Congress Guidelines is 300 meters has been violated. According to the petitioner, this would endanger the lives of the people in and around the area, as the object of those Guidelines are to ensure safe distance between two retail outlets in order to avoid devastating effects in case of fire accidents.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner has invested huge amount of money for establishing the said outlet and without considering the same and without having regard to the safety aspect and prescribed guidelines, Respondent No.5 granted “ No Objection Certificate ” to Respondent No.1 on flimsy grounds, which is arbitrary and illegal.
6. Respondent No.3/Superintendent of Police, Annamayya District filed counter affidavit, contending that:
i. Impugned order is legally correct and not arbitrary;
ii. 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;
iii. There is no partiality in favour of Respondent No.1 and the official respondents have acted as per law and as per the rules laid in the Petroleum Act and Rules;
iv. Official Respondents have obtained all the requisite permission to establish the subject petrol bunk in the subject land.
7. Respondent No.1/IOCl who has been allotted subject petrol bunk by Respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit and would submit that the Indian Road Congress Guidelines are not mandatory and the impugned order has been passed granting „No Objection Certificate‟ correctly by applying the settled law that the Indian Congress Guidelines are not mandatory as it will get statutory force only when appropriate rules are framed by the State Government. In fact, no rules were framed by the State of Andhra Pradesh, therefore, the referred guidelines
