The definition of protected works in petroleum regulations does not encompass fireworks shops, allowing for the establishment of petroleum outlets under specific distances.

J U D G M E N T

1. The petitioner is challenging the Ext.P9 Order by which NOC sought by the 6^th respondent under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2000 , for establishing petroleum retail outlet was rejected. The 7^th respondent/PESO granted Ext.P1 Clearance dated 31.12.2024 to the 6^th respondent in order to enable the petitioner to start a petroleum outlet on 1.20 Acres of land in Re-Survey No.438/1B of Madikai Village, Hosdurg Taluk, Kasaragod District. Madikai Grama Panchayat issued Ext.P2 NOC dated 25.05.2024. The 5^th respondent/District Police Chief issued Ext.P3 NOC dated 24.06.2024. The District Fire Officer issued Ext.P4 NOC dated 27.07.2024.

2. The application for NOC was rejected in Ext.P9, finding that there exists a fireworks shop within a distance of 10 meters, which has got permission to store 500 kgs of fireworks; that the establishment of a petroleum outlet would be against the life and property of the public; and that it is not desirable to establish the petroleum outlet in view of the provisions under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 , and the specific safety provisions in Annexure-I under the National Disaster Management Guidelines (Chemical Disaster) issued under the provisions of the Disaster Management Act.

3. I have heard Smt. Avantika R., the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader, Sri. Tony Augustine for the respondents 1 to 5 and Sri. M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar, the learned Standing Counsel for the 6^th respondent.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the specific finding in Ext.P9 that the said fireworks shop is operational only during the Vishu season, it is situated 12 meters away from the boundary of the premises and 50 meters away from the centre of the premises on the opposite side of the road. The learned Counsel further invited my attention to Condition No.7 in Form XVI of the Second Schedule of the Petroleum Rules, which provides the distance from the protected works to the storage shed. The distance to be maintained for the petroleum storage having a capacity between 50,000 litres and 1,00,000 litres from the protected works is 12 meters. Protected works defined under Rule 2(1)

(xxi) of the Petroleum Rules does not include fireworks shops. All other authorities, including the Fire and Safety Department, have recommended the establishment of an outlet. The 5^th respondent/District Police Chief has no right or authority to issue Ext.P8, objecting to the establishment of the outlet after issuing Ext.P3 recommending the establishment of the outlet. The learned Counsel concluded her argument by submitting that the reasons stated in Ext.P9 for the denial of the NOC for the petroleum outlet are clearly unsustainable.

5. The learned Standing Counsel for the 6^th respondent advanced the arguments supporting the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and further contended that Ext.P4 NOC is issued by the District Fire Officer to the petroleum outlet. The District Fire Officer is the authority responsible for certifying the fire safety of the petroleum outlet. In Ext.P9, the District Collector has relied on the Ext.P8 Report of the District Police Chief, who has no authority to consider the fire safety of the petroleum outlet. The learned Counsel invited my attention to the Proforma No Objection Certificate under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, particularly Clause (b) therein, which provides that the police department is to comment regarding the traffic density and impact on traffic, and not on the fire safety of the petroleum outlet. Annexure-I in the National Disaster Management G