Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J
SRIKANTH – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenging noc rejection. (Para 1) |
| 2. consideration of recorded water bodies for noc. (Para 2 , 3) |
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P6 Order of the 2nd respondent/Additional District Magistrate by which his Application for NOC under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules , 2002, was rejected, and Ext.P8 Order by which his Revision Petition was dismissed by the District Collector.
2. Both sides submitted that the reason for refusing the NOC to the petitioner is that the site proposed for the Petroleum Retail Outlet does not satisfy the Guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board, as a water channel and pond are situated within the prohibited distance of 50 Meters.
3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner pointed out Ext.P4 Report of the Tahsildar addressed to the District Collector, in which it is stated that the said water channel and pond are not recorded in the revenue records. As per Ext.P9 Guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board, the water bodies recorded in the revenue records within the prohibited distance alone need to be considered while considering an Application for NOC. Henc
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
