IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J
THARA P – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. The Petitioner wants to establish a Petroleum Retail Outlet as a Dealer of the Respondent No.4 - Oil Company. The Respondent No.4 issued Ext.P1 Letter of Intent dated 02.09.2019 to the Petitioner. Though the Respondent No.4 applied for NOC as required under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 , on 04.09.2019, the same was rejected as per Ext.P22 Order passed by the Respondent No.2 on the ground that the proposed site does not satisfy the siting criteria as per Ext.P13 Revised Guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) with respect to the distance from neighboring school and that the construction was not started. Earlier, Respondent No.2 had rejected the NOC as per the Ext.P17 Order dated 31.12.2021. This Court set aside the Ext.P17 Order in the Ext.P18 judgment, and thereafter the Respondent No.2 passed the Ext.P19 Order dated 04.07.2024 again rejecting the NOC. When the Petitioner sent Ext.P20 Contempt Notice alleging that Ext.P19 Order is not in compliance with Ext.P18 judgment of this Court, the Respondent No.2 reconsidered the matter and passed Ext.P22 Order, which is impugned in this Writ Petition.
2. I heard the learned Counsel for the Petit
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.