Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 59656
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. Srimathy, J
Selvi – Appellant
Versus
The Divisional Retail Head Indian Oil Corporation Limited – Respondent
W.P(MD)No.12923 of 2023
For the Petitioner: Mr.A.Satheesh Murugan
For R1: Mr.K.Muraleedharan
For R2 and R3: Mr.S.Shanmugavel, Additional Government Pleader
The court held that guidelines are not absolute mandates, reinforcing rights established by previous approvals from relevant authorities.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus - Petition filed to quash the refusal of a No Objection Certificate for establishing a retail outlet - The respondents' rejection based on a failed requirement of the area size in a Government Order was contested - The court discussed prior rulings on guidelines and past orders favoring the petitioner, resulting in the conclusion that the impugned order should be quashed. (Paras 2, 4, 8)
(B) Jurisdiction - The Court highlighted its jurisdiction to intervene when incorrect applications of guidelines and laws affect established rights due to non-application of mind by lower authorities. (Paras 3, 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner applied for a No Objection Certificate to establish a retail outlet but was denied based on insufficient land area, despite corresponding approvals from relevant authorities.
Findings of Court:
The respondents' refusal was found unwarranted; the guidelines were deemed not mandatory, resulting in the Court ordering the issuance of the No Objection Certificate.
Issues: The main issues revolved around guidelines for property dimensions and the legitimacy of the refusal based on those parameters.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that past decisions established that adherence to IRC guidelines is not absolute and that the lower authority's rationale was flawed, thereby necessitating intervention.
Result: The impugned proceedings are quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. refusal of no objection certificate (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on jurisdiction and asymmetric guidelines (Para 3) |
| 3. judicial review of guidelines compliance (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. court's final reasoning against arbitrary refusals (Para 7) |
| 5. order quashing the previous decision (Para 8 , 9) |
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned proceedings passed by the 2nd respondent dated 28.04.2023 and consequently to direct the 2nd respondent to issue No Objection Certificate for the establishment of the retail MS/HSD outlet in Survey No. 364/1F1B, 364/1E2, Orur to Vellaiyapuram, Oriyur Village, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District in favour of the petitioner.
2. Through the impugned order, the 2nd respondent has refused to grant a No Objection Certificate, stating that the extent prescribed in G.O.Ms.No. 25, dated 24.02.2022, has not been met. According to the said G.O., the required extent of the property should be 35 x 35. However, the petitioner does not have the required space.
3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents relied on the latest G.O.Ms.No.121, dated 12.09.2023, wherein the prescribed extent is 25M x 25M. Since the petitioner does not have the required space as per the said G.O., the respondents have rejected the request.
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that all the Government Orders were issued in accordance with the IRC guidelines laid down by the Petroleum authorities. As far as the Indian Oil Corporation is concerned, it has granted permission to open the retail outlet by accepting the existing extent of the property. Therefore, once the appropriate authority has already granted approval, the rejection by the respondents is unjustified. It reflects a non-application of mind.
4. A similar issue was considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.28195 of 2022, dated 29.03.2023, wherein it was held that the Government Order was issued based on the guidelines, and therefore, the G.O. itself forms part of the guidelines. Moreover, the Indian Oil Corporation accepted the extent of the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
5. Another learned Single Judge of this Court also considered the issue and passed an order in W.P.(MD) No.9203 of 2023, dated 20.01.2025, wherein it is stated as follows:
“3.On perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent and on the submissions made by the learned Special Government Pleader would reveal that the petitioner proposed to open a retail outlet for sale of petrol/diesel of MS/HSD retail outlet in the land comprised in Survey No.158/1A4B situated at Narippaiyur Village, Kadaladi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. On physical verification, the said land is not sufficient for sale of petrol/diesel retail outlets in terms of the Indian Road Congress Guidelines – 12 (2016) Section 5.2 and as per G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 24.02.2022. As per the Indian Road Congress Guidelines and the Government order, the plot size will be 35m x 35m dimensions but the petitioner's plot does not with the dimension of 35m x 35m dimension. Therefore the request made by the petitioner for No Objection Certificate was rejected by the first respondent. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court repeatedly held that the Indian Road Congress Guidelines are not mandatory in all matters. Further, the Government of Tamil Nadu failed to frame any rules in conjunction with the guidelines issued by the Indian Road Congress.
4.As stated supra, the petitioner applied for a retail outlet dealership as early as on 15.12.2018. But the Government passed G.O.(MS)No.25 on 24.02.2022. Therefore the said G.O is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. Further, as per the notification issued by the first respondent, it requires only a 30 m X 30 m dimension plot. The petitioner's plot size is 33m X 33 m dim
