The court establishes that local objections are not material for NOC applications under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002.

JUDGMENT

1. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P17 Order rejecting the Application for No Objection Certificate under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules , 2002, of the Respondent No.4 for establishing a Petroleum Retail Outlet by the Petitioner as the Dealer of the Respondent No.4. Petitioner has obtained a Letter of Intent to start a Petroleum Retail Outlet from the Respondent No.4 on his land situated in Survey Nos.98/20 & 98/17 of Achuranam Village in Vythiri Taluk in Wayanad District. Respondent No.4 has obtained Ext.P4 PESO Clearance for the said Outlet.

2. Respondent Nos. 4, 5 & 6 have filed Counter Affidavit supporting the Petitioner. The Respondent No.2/District Collector has filed a Counter Affidavit opposing the prayers in the Writ Petition.

3. I heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri. Praveen K. Joy, learned Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3, and the learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 6, Sri. Nithin George.

4. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that all the authorities have recommended the suitability of the site for starting the Petroleum Retail Outlet to the Respondent No.3/Additional District Magistrate. In spite of that, the Respondent No.3 rejected the NOC on the ground that there is objection from Respondent No.7, who is residing in the neighborhood. The learned Counsel invited my attention to Exts.P10 & P11 judgments of this Court in which this Court has held that while considering an Application for NOC under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules , the protest of the local people need not be considered.

5. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader contended that the proposed site is not suitable for starting a Petroleum Retail Outlet on account of the existence of a public well, which is to be treated as a waterbody, in the prohibited distance and also on account of the road safety issues.

6. I have considered the rival contentions.

7. Exts.P12 to P16 Reports of the different authorities would show that they have not raised any objection to the establishment of the Petroleum Retail Outlet in the proposed site. It is seen from Ext.P17 Order that the Tahsildar has referred to the objection of the Respondent No.7, who is a local resident, and the existence of his well. In Ext.P17, the NOC was rejected on the grounds of public safety. The Respondent No.3 has vaguely referred to the existence of Vythiri Banasura Sagar Dam Road, nearness of Idiyam Vayal junction and the starting point of Kalikkuni Road, Settukunnu Road and the residence of Respondent No.7 at a distance of 12 Mtrs. It does not say as to how it would affect public safety. Even though notice was served on the Respondent No.7, the Respondent No.7 has not chosen to appear and contest the case.

8. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the District Police Chief has not raised any objection on the ground of road safety in Ext.P14 Report. The question of road safety is a matter to be considered by the Police Department and Highway Authorities as per the Proforma No Objection Certificate, provided under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules . When the said Authorities have not raised any objection, the ADM cannot take a different view without assigning any specific reason. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the objection of the local residents is not material for considering the Application for NOC under of the , as held in Exts.P10 & P11 judgments of this Court. It is the contention of the learned Government Pleader that there exists a well within the prohibited distance. The Guidelines of the Central Pollu