The distance for compliance with petroleum retail outlet regulations should be measured from dispensing units rather than property boundaries, ensuring procedural fairness in decision-making.

J U D G M E N T

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking to set aside Ext.P3 order dated 26.06.2025 issued by the 3^rd respondent. By the impugned order, the 3^rd respondent rejected request for NOC under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules submitted by the 1^st respondent – company. Petitioner had offered his land to establish a retail petroleum outlet.

2. The 3^rd respondent rejected the request for NOC for the reason that as per the guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board, retail petroleum outlets are not permissible within 50 Meters of radius of Lakes, Ponds, Streams, Rivers, Wetlands, Canals, Creeks etc. The 3^rd respondent has noted in Ext.P3 that the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat had reported that a stream is situated within 50 Meters from the boundary of the property wherein the petroleum outlet is proposed to be established. The 3^rd respondent also noticed that Village Officer has reported that another stream was found at a distance of 30.2 Meters from the boundary of the property of the petitioner. For these reasons the 3^rd respondent rejected the request for NOC.

3. The learned Senior Government Pleader has filed a statement. The learned Senior Government Pleader has refuted the contentions of the petitioner in the statement filed.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Senior Government Pleader appeared for the 3^rd respondent, learned Standing Counsel appeared for respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned counsel appeared for the 4^th respondent –

Panchayat.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the distance from the nearby water body to the petroleum outlet is not to be measured taking into account the distance between the boundary of the property wherein the outlet was proposed to be established and on the other hand, distance is to be calculated from the dispensing unit and the underground tank. He placed heavy reliance on the observations made by this Court in judgment dated 08.04.2025 in W.P.(C) No.9228 of 2025. Paragraph 8 of the said judgment reads as under:

“On a consideration of the facts and the materials on record, especially the report of the competent officer of the 4^th respondent, and further that the petitioner or the oil marketing company were not afforded an opportunity of being heard before a decision was taken on the application, I am satisfied that the matter is to be reconsidered by the 1^st respondent, after affording the petitioner and a representative of the oil marketing company an opportunity of being heard. It will also be upto the petitioner and the 4^th respondent to also produce materials to establish the actual distance between the proposed retail outlet and the water body. It is to be remembered that the purpose and objective of the 50 meter distance rule in Ext.P6 guideline is to ensure that no pollution is caused to the water body due to any unexpected seepage/leak from the underground tanks and dispensing units. Therefore, the distance of 50 meter mentioned in guidelines is to be measured from the underground storage tanks and the dispensing units and not the boundary of the proposed Retail Outlet.”

6. This Court has specifically held in the above said judgment that the purpose and objective of the 50 Meters distance rule under the guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board is to ensure that no pollution is caused to the water body on account of any seepage or leak from the underground tanks and dispensing units. It was categorically held that the distance of 50 Meter is to be calculated on the basis of measurement from the underground storage tank and dispensing units and not from the boundary of the proposed retail outlets. Perusal of Ext.P3 shows that the 3^rd respondent relied on the reports of the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat and also the