HIGH COURT OF KERALA
N. NAGARESH, J
PHILIP JOHN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/12132/2020
Petroleum - NOC Issuance - Petroleum Rules, 2002 Section 144 - The court upheld the issuance of NOC for a petroleum retail outlet despite concerns over IRC Guidelines, emphasizing compliance with environmental assessments and recommendations from relevant authorities.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the NOC granted for a petroleum retail outlet, claiming it violated IRC Guidelines and ignored local objections. The 3rd respondent issued the NOC after receiving favorable reports from relevant authorities, indicating no safety or environmental concerns.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no factual basis for the petitioner's concerns, as the NOC issuance complied with statutory protocols and involved appropriate assessments from health and safety departments.
Issues: Whether the issuance of the NOC for a petroleum retail outlet violated IRC Guidelines and posed safety threats to the locality.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the adherence to prescribed protocols by the 3rd respondent and the confirmation of no objections from relevant authorities justified the NOC's issuance.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed.
J U D G M E N T
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The petitioner, who is a resident of Mararithottam, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash Ext.P3 NOC granted to the BPCL under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 ; to direct the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P6 representation and to direct the 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P5 representation made by the petitioner.
2. The petitioner states that the 4th respondent has obtained Ext.P3 NOC from the 3rd respondent for location of Petroleum Retail Outlet in the land in Re-Survey No.180/2, Block 14, Kallelibhagam Village, Karunagappally Taluk. While issuing Ext.P3 NOC, the 3rd respondent has ignored the IRC Guidelines. In the application submitted by the 4th respondent, a sketch was attached. All roads were not shown in the sketch. A road has been shown as a pathway. The 3rd respondent accepted the application and the sketch as such and issued NOC.
3. The petitioner would further submit that the residents in the area have submitted Ext.P5 mass petition to the 3rd respondent against establishment of the Petroleum Retail Outlet in the thickly populated area. The representation of the petitioner and the local residents has been ignored. The 4th respondent has no right to use the site at Mararithottam for locating the Petroleum Retail Outlet. 4. The 3rd respondent filed a counter affidavit. After receiving the application for NOC, reports were called for by the 3rd respondent from District Police Chiefs, Tahsildar, District Fire Officer, Executive Engineer (PWD-Roads) and District Supply Officer. The District Police Chief reported that there is no complaints in respect of establishment of Petroleum Retail Outlet. The District Supply Officer reported that NOC can be granted for starting the new petroleum outlets. The Executive Engineer, PWD (Roads) reported that the measurement of buffer strip must be 12.0 x 3.0 m. at the time of construction and on that condition, NOC can be issued. The Regional Fire Officer reported that there is no objection in granting NOC to the proposed Petroleum Retail Outlet, in the fire protection point of view.
5. Still, as there were some objections, a hearing was conducted on 23.07.2019. After hearing, a letter was sent to the Environmental Engineer of the Pollution Control Board seeking his report. The Environmental Engineer reported that the petroleum outlet unit comes under Green Category and there is no objection in granting NOC. In the circumstances, issuance of NOC to the 4th respondent is justified, stated the 3rd respondent.
6. The 5th respondent filed a counter affidavit. The 5th respondent pointed out that the petitioner is residing within the limits of Panmana Grama Panchayat and he is not affected by the establishment of Petroleum Retail Outlet at the proposed location. The petitioner is hand in glove with one Vijayan alias Maithanam Vijayan who is a competitor, running a petrol pump nearby the locality. The said Vijayan had earlier filed writ petition through one Sathyadevan, but failed to obtain an interim stay. Subsequently, W.P.(C) No.33692/2019 was filed in which an interim order was passed. Later, when the interim order was vacated, the said writ petition was withdrawn. Subsequently, one Sudhakaran filed another W.P.(C) (Temp) No.204/2020. No interim order was passed in the said writ petition. Thereafter, the said Vijayan filed OS No.64/2020 before the Munsiff's Court, Karunagapally. Later, OP(C) No.855/2020 was filed by the said Vijayan before this Court. In the said OP(C) also, interim order was declined. Thereafter, one Satheesan filed W.P.(C) No.7167/2020. The said writ petition was disposed of directing the Pollution Control Board to consider his representation.
7. The 5th respondent contended that he belongs to Scheduled Caste and litigations after litigations are initiated against the proposed Petroleum Retail Outlet with the sole intention of defeating the desire of the petitioner to establish a Petroleum Retail Outlet.
8. Heard the learned
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.