The petitioner lacked locus standi to challenge the issuance of a No Objection Certificate for a petroleum outlet due to insufficient proof of personal stake and compliance with regulatory guidelines.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 12^th day of February, 2026

1. The Writ Petition as amended is filed by the Petitioner challenging Ext.P14 No Objection Certificate under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules , 2002, and Ext.P15 Order granting the said NOC by the Respondent No.4/Additional District Magistrate. The Respondent No.4 granted Ext.P14 No Objection Certificate to the Respondent No.10/Oil Marketing Company to enable the Respondent No.11 as its dealer for starting a Petroleum Retail Outlet in Resurvey Nos.484/12, 484/16-1 & 484/7 of Arpookara Village in Kottayam Taluk in Kottayam District.

2. The Respondent Nos.7 & 8 filed a Statement that since the averments in the Writ Petition pertain to the NOC issued by the Respondent No.4, Respondent Nos.7 & 8 have no role in it. The Respondent No.10 has filed a Counter Affidavit, and the Respondent No.11 has filed Counter Affidavit and Additional Counter Affidavit opposing the prayers in the Writ Petition.

3. I heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri. Ananthakrishnan A. Kartha, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.10, Sri. M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.11, Sri. Jossy Kurian, and the learned Senior Government Pleader Sri.K.M. Rashmi for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4, 9, 12 & 13.

4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Respondent Nos.10 & 11 are attempting to establish a Petroleum Retail Outlet in the proposed site in violation of the Guidelines of the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). The Medical College School, Athirampuzha, is situated just opposite to the proposed site within the prohibited distance. The children of the Petitioner have been studying in the school, and the Petitioner is a member of the PTA of the said school. The conduct of the Petroleum Retail Outlet in the proposed site will affect the health and safety of the students studying in the said school. The Petitioner, being a parent of the students of the said school, has every right to challenge Ext.P14 NOC and Ext.P15 Order granting NOC. The proposed site is situated inside the prohibited designated residential area as reported by the Respondent No.13 in the Report dated 12.01.2026, which is produced along with the Memo dated 16.01.2026 filed by the Senior Government Pleader. Learned Counsel prayed for setting aside Exts.P14 & P15.

5. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.10 contended that the proposed site is not situated within the designated residential area as contended by the Petitioner. The learned Counsel invited my attention to Ext.P16 Approved Development Plan for Medical College Area, Kottayam, to show that the proposed site is situated in a residential mixed zone. In such case, the prohibition contained in CPCB Guidelines is not applicable. Ext.R10(c) Certificate issued by the Arpookara Grama Panchayat would show that the proposed site is not situated in a designated residential area. The Respondent No.10 has clearly disputed the locus standi of the Petitioner denying the allegation that the Petitioner's children are studying in the Medical College School, Ahtirampuzha. The Petitioner has not produced any document to show that his children are studying in the said school. Even though the Respondent No.10 has filed Counter Affidavit specifically denying the said allegation, the Petitioner has not chosen to file any Reply Affidavit. The Medical College School, Athirampuzha, is situated behind the School of Medical Education, which is situated on the opposite side of the proposed site. The School of Medical Education is a college and not a school. The distance from the proposed site to the School of Medical Education itself is 49.94 Mtrs. It makes it