Indian Road Congress (IRC) guidelines are recommendatory and directory, not mandatory, unless they have been adopted by the State Government and incorporated into statutory rules or notifications.

O R D E R

The order dated 27.12.2023 of the second respondent vide D.Dis.33681/2020/C2 granting “No Objection Certificate” to the fifth respondent, is put under challenge in the present Writ Petition. Further, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the second respondent to hear him in terms of the order dated 27.06.2022 in W.P.8056 of 2022, in considering the application of the fifth respondent submitted to the second respondent for grant of No Objection Certificate for setting up Petroleum Retail Outlet at S.No.118,1A1, Thumbai Village, Bethanayakampalayam Taluk, Salem District.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is running a Petroleum Retail Outlet adjacent to the fifth respondent’s land. He contended that the fifth respondent made an application and participated in the notification issued by the fourth respondent for Retail Outlet permission, for which, No Objection Certificate was granted by the second respondent without considering his objections and affording an opportunity of hearing as per the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.8056 of 2022, which is in violation of the Court’s order as well as to the distance norms of the respondents. He further submitted that in this regard, a civil suit was filed in O.S.182 of 2021 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Attur. Hence, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that IRC norms is not mandatory but only directory. In support of the said contention, he drew the attention of this Court to the decision of this Court in W.P.No.1956 of 2022 dated 04.02.2022 [ H. Alaudeen Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, Regional Office, Salem and 2 others ]. The relevant portions of the order reads as under:

“… the issue in the present case was already decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in (2016) Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others Vs. Arti Devi Dangi and another in which, it is stated that IRC guidelines is mandatory requirement of the tender conditions in the said case. This Court by its order in W.P.No.35885 of 2019 dated 11.03.2021 has admitted that IRC-2009 is not mandatory in nature. It is a further submission of the learned Additional Advocate General that the decision in W.P. (MD) No.9622 of 2020 and W.M.P.(MD) No.8659 of 2020 have been distinguished by the Madurai Bench in W.A.(MD) No.1054 of 2020 and in such a scenario, the case has to be referred to a Larger Bench for deciding the issue as to whether IRC guidelines is recommendatory or mandatory. Accordingly, he prays for appropriate orders.

6. The fact in the present case is not in dispute and by the order of both the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court, the Apex Court has taken consideration of IRC guidelines and based upon which, respective States have framed rules following the IRC. Further, the learned Single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition in W.P.No.8634 of 2021 and directed the respondents to issue No Objection Certificate to the respective persons.

7. Further, in yet another decision in W.P.No.35885 of 2019 vide order dated 11.03.2021, another learned Single Judge, adverting to various decision has clearly held that IRC is recommendatory and not mandatory. The relevant portion of the said order is as under:

“As seen from the above, the Indian Road Congress Guidelines have no statutory force as far as State of Tamil Nadu is concerend. The instructions given by the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Highways Department dated 08.11.2019 as well as instructions given by the Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu to all