Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 44265
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Anand Venkatesh, J
G.Chandrasekaran – Appellant
Versus
The Addl District Magistrate/District Revenue Officer, Chengalpet – Respondent
WP No. 32404 of 2024 | WMP No. 35192 of 2024
For the Petitioner: Mr.V. Manohar
For the Respondent(s): Mr.P.Ganesan, Mr.M. Mohammed Fayaz Ali
IRC norms for fuel station locations are recommendatory, not mandatory; compliance with previously established government positions is essential for decision-making.
Headnote:(A) Articles 226 of the Constitution of India - Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus - Challenge to No Objection Certificate issued by authorities - Petitioner sought permission to open a retail outlet of petroleum products, which was rejected based on IRC norms - Court noted that IRC guidelines are recommendatory and not mandatory. (Paras 1, 4, 5 and 6)
(B) Regulatory Framework for Establishing Fuel Stations - Guidelines issued for safe operation and location of fuel stations must consider current traffic conditions and not rigidly apply old criteria - Prior government notifications and positions must be taken into account. (Paras 5 and 6)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner's request to establish a retail outlet at an approved location was denied by authorities citing non-compliance with IRC norms for road safety.
Findings of Court:
Court ruled that the relevant IRC norms are recommendatory, directing the issuance of the required NOC to the petitioner.
Issues: The core issue was whether strict adherence to IRC norms should be applied in this situation given that they are not mandatory and the context of the approval process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that IRC guidelines, being recommendatory, should not obstruct the establishment of the outlet given the prior approvals and not being situated on a highway.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the procedural validity of the noc for a retail outlet. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. irc norms are not mandatorily applicable in this context. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court directed issuance of noc due to irc norms being recommendatory. (Para 6) |
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 28.09.2022 and for a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to issue No Objection Certificate to the petitioner to open the retail outlet in the location that has already been identified by the 5th respondent.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3.The petitioner was selected for establishing the retail outlet by the 5th respondent in the year 2018. The place was also located. In order to locate the retail outlet, an inspection was made and the site was approved by the 4th respondent. This location abuts the rural road connecting Pavanjur-Koovathur and the petitioner has complied with all the other requirements. The petitioner was asked to get the No Objection Certificate from the 2nd respondent. The No Objection Certificate has been rejected mainly on the ground that the proposed retail outlet is not in line with the IRC Norms and therefore, the 2nd respondent has refused to grant No Objection Certificate to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.
4.The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit and the 2nd respondent has taken the following stand:
9. I humbly submit that the site in question was inspected and a report was sent to the District Revenue Officer stating that it is not possible to issue a No Objection Certificate as prayed for by the Petitioner. The reason being the proposed outlet location is at Km 18/4 (L/S) of Mudukarai - Kadalore Road. This road is maintained by the Chengalpattu, Highways, Construction and Maintenance and it is a Major District Road with an undivided carriageway of 7.00 m. The proposed retail outlet (petrol bunk) of HPCL has a frontage (length) of 32.60m and a depth (width) of 31.20m (32.60 X 31.20m). However, as per IRC norms12-2009, the frontage should be 35.00m and the depth should be 35.00m (35.00m X 35.00m). Therefore, it is clear that the Petitioner has not satisfied Indian Road Congress (IRC) norms 12-2009 While so, the Petitioner is not entitled to get the No Objection Certificate from the Respondents
10. I further submit that the proposed retail outlet (petrol bunk) of the Petitioner is 151.00m from the nearest junction Mudukarai-Kadalore Road (junction with-on the right side) Kodur road (junction with-on the left side) MK Road to Manikuppam Road As per IRC 12-2009, the maximum distance for intersection for plain and rolling terrain-non-urban structure Major District Road is 300m. Therefore also, the Petitioner has not satisfied the IRC 12-2009 norms and consequently, the question of granting No Objection will not arise in this case
11. I respectfully submit that the claim of the Petitioner in para No. 3 that the road where the proposed petrol bunk is to be established is a rural road and Indian Road Congress (IRC) guidelines will not apply to such road. This averment of the Petitioner is untenable inasmuch as this road is an important major District Road with an undivided carriageway of 7.00 m. The guidelines issued under IRC 12-2009 for installation of fuel station on Major District Roads are applicable to the present case as well. Therefore, the contentions urged by the Petitioner merits rejection.
12. I respectfully submit that IRC norms have to be followed strictly without any deviation. The Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways had revised substantially the norms for location layout and access to fuel station along the National Highways keeping in view the increased speed of vehicles and greater need for road safety because of development of National Highways network under various
