The rejection of a No Objection Certificate based on unrecorded water bodies does not comply with statutory guidelines.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P6 Order of the 2^nd 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. Hence, the rejection of NOC on the ground of existence of a water channel and pond which are not recorded in the revenue records, within the prohibited distance is unsustainable. Exts.P6 and P8 Orders are liable to be set aside.

1. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside Exts.P6 and P8 Orders and directing the 2^nd respondent to issue a No Objection Certificate to the petitioner under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules , 2002, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

Sd/-