Kerala High Court
Bindhu Kuniparambath vs The Joint Chief Controller Of ... on 18 August, 2025
2025:KER:62117
W.P.(C).No.12226 of 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 27TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 12226 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
BINDHU KUNIPARAMBATH
AGED 42 YEARS
W/O JITHEESH PANICKER M.V NAVAGRAHA HOUSE,
KADIRUR, THALASSERY KANNUR, PIN - 670642.
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR
SMT.A.SALINI LAL
SRI.JINU P. BINU
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE JOINT CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES
PETROLEUM AND EXPLOSIVES SAFETY ORGANISATION A&D-
WING, BLOCK 1-8, IIND FLOOR, SHASTRI BHAVAN, 26
HADDOUS ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAM CHENNAI, PIN - 600006
2 THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES
PETROLEUM AND EXPLOSIVES SAFETY ORGANISATION
ERNAKULAM SUB CIRCLE, C2-IIIRD FLOOR, CGO COMPLEX
KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
3 THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED
REP BY ITS TERRITORY MANAGER KOZHIKODE DIVISIONAL
OFFICE IIND FLOOR, P.M.K TOWERS CIVIL STATION
POST, WAYANAD ROAD, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
2025:KER:62117
W.P.(C).No.12226 of 2025
2
4 THE CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
REP BY ITS SECRETARY PARIVESH BHAWAN, EAST ARJUN
NAGAR, DELHI, PIN - 110032
5 THE SECRETARY
MANANTHAVADY MUNICIPALITY MINICIPAL OFFICE,
MANATHAVADY P.O, WAYANAD, PIN - 670645.
6 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
WAYANAD,COLLECTORATE, WAYANAD, PIN - 673122.
7 THE TAHASILDAR
TALUK OFFICE, MANATHAVDY-, PIN - 670645.
BY ADVS.
O.M.SHALINA, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
SRI.SANTHARAM.P., SC, Mananthavady Municipality
SRI.NOEL JACOB
SRI.RAAJESH S.SUBRAHMANIAN
SRI.M.S.AMAL DHARSAN
DR.THUSHARA JAMES
OTHER PRESENT:
ADV TONY AUGUSTINE, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 18.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:62117
W.P.(C).No.12226 of 2025
3
[CR]
S.MANU, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.12226 of 2025
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of August, 2025
JUDGMENT
The 3rd respondent company invited applications for
starting retail outlets of petroleum products at various places
including Mananthavady Town. Petitioner applied, offering 30
cents of property in Re.Sy.No.683/2 of Mananthavady Village
and the application was approved by the 3rd respondent.
2. Third respondent approached the 1 st respondent for
initial approval and on 28.3.2024 approval was granted. On
19.4.2024, No Objection Certificate under Rule 144 of the
Petroleum Rules,2002, was issued by the District Collector. An
application was filed before the 2 nd respondent on 27.1.2025 for
approval. It was rejected by the 2nd respondent on 24.2.2025 by
Ext.P5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this
2025:KER:62117
Court. A statement was filed by the learned Deputy Solicitor
General on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. The Central
Pollution Control Board also filed a statement.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,the
learned Deputy Solicitor General for respondents 1 and 2, the
learned Standing Counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation and the
learned Government Pleader for respondents 6 and 7.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed Ext.P5
decision of the Controller of Explosives contending that the
reasons stated in Ext.P5 for rejecting the requests are not
sustainable. She pointed out that the Chief Controller stated in
Ext.P5 that the distance between the boundary of Newman
college and the retail outlet is less than 30 meters. Further the
Controller stated that the proposed site is falling under mixed
zone. The Controller also stated that it was not specified in the
certificate that the proposed site is not a designated residential
area. Controller added that the site is not compliant of CPCB
guidelines dated 7.1.2020. She pointed out that the CPCB
2025:KER:62117
guidelines dated 7.1.2020 insists only that the distance between
new retail outlet from schools, hospitals (10 beds and above)
and residential area designated as per local laws shall be less
than 30 m. She submitted that colleges are not included in the
siting criteria. She further submitted that when the Secretary of
the local authority certified that the proposed site is in a mixed
zone, reasoning of the Controller that there is no confirmation
that the proposed site is not within a designated residential area
is illogical. She also stated that the Controller has not pointed
out any reasons for his conclusion that the proposed site is not
compliant of the CPCB guidelines.
5. Learned Deputy Solicitor General submitted that the
petitioner obtained Ext.P2 approval dated 28.3.2024 without
showing the boundary wall of the college in the drawing
submitted with the application for approval. Hence, the
approval was obtained by misrepresentation. It was also
submitted that application dated 28.1.2025 was rejected by
letter dated 29.1.2025. The said letter has been produced as
2025:KER:62117
Annexure-R1(b). Thereafter, an application was submitted on
22.2.2025. As per the siting criteria, minimum distance of 30 m.
should be there from educational institutions. However, a
college is located within the said distance from the proposed
site. She further submitted that the Secretary of the
Municipality affirmed only that the proposed site is falling within
a mixed zone. It was not confirmed that the area is not a
designated residential area. Later, by Ext.P7, the Secretary of
the Municipality confirmed that the proposed site is not a
designated residential area as per local laws. She contended
that the two certificates issued by the Secretary are
contradictory. She hence submitted that the decision taken by
the Controller is justified and Ext.P5 is not liable to be interfered
with by this Court.
6. In the statement filed by the Central Pollution Control
Board the norms are explained.
7. Paragraph 'H' of the guidelines for setting up of new
petrol pumps issued by the Central Pollution Control Board is
2025:KER:62117
extracted hereunder:-
"H. Siting criteria of Retail Outlets:
In case of siting criteria for petrol pumps new Retail
Outlets shall not be located within a radial distance of 50
meters (from fill point/dispensing units/vent pipe
whichever is nearest) from schools, hospitals (10 beds
and above) and residential areas designated as per local
laws. In case of constraints in providing 50 meters
distance, the retail outlet shall implement additional
safety measures as prescribed by PESO. In no case the
distance between new retail outlet from schools,
hospitals (10 beds and above) and residential area
designated as per local laws shall be less than 30
meters. No high tension line shall pass over the retail
outlet."
8. The above extracted paragraph insists that fill
point/dispensing unit/vent pipe of retail outlets, whichever is
nearest, shall not be located within a radial distance of 50 m.
from schools, hospitals (10 beds and above) and residential
areas designated as per local laws. Additional safety measures
are to be implemented if there are constraints in providing 50
2025:KER:62117
m. distance. In no case distance between new retail outlets and
schools, hospitals (10 beds and above) and residential area
designated as per local laws shall be less than 30 m. It should
be noted that only two distinct types of institutions, schools and
hospitals (10 beds and above) have been specifically mentioned
in the distance criteria apart from designated residential areas.
There is no generic/general terms employed in the paragraph to
bring any broad categories of institutions within its purview.
The contention of the learned Deputy Solicitor General is that
when schools are mentioned in the criteria, intent is clear and
other educational institutions shall also fall within the scope of
the same. If the intention was as canvassed, nothing stopped
the CPCB from bringing other types of educational institutions
also within the ambit of paragraph 'H' by expressly mentioning
the same or by employing the generic expression 'educational
institutions' rather than specifically using the word 'schools'. The
only inference that can be drawn is that the guidelines dated
7.1.2020 issued by the CPCB for setting up of new petrol pumps
2025:KER:62117
do not require any minimum distance between educational
institutions aside from schools and retail outlets that sell
petroleum products.
9. It is also pertinent to note that the CPCB in its
statement filed in this case has stated as under:-
"4. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble NGT (PB)
in O.A. no.408/2023 vide order dated 20.12.2023
sought reply/response of CPCB on the matter for
clarification as to inclusion of word 'colleges' in the
word 'schools' as mentioned in guidelines dated
07.01.2020 issued by CPCB. In compliance to the
order. CPCB vide its reply dated 02.02.2024
submitted that the issue of prescribing siting criteria
w.r.t. certain locations/buildings has already been
deliberated by the expert committee and colleges
have not been included considering schools and
hospitals (10 beds and above), as sensitive
locations. It is humbly submitted that the matter is
sub-judice at present."
[ Emphasis added]
10. Therefore the CPCB has submitted before the
National Green Tribunal(PB) that colleges have not been
2025:KER:62117
included in the siting criteria among the sensitive locations.
Since the author of the guidelines, CPCB, has clarified before the
NGT (PB) that it did not intend to include colleges within the
siting criteria treating them as sensitive locations , it is not for
any other authority to give an expansive interpretation to the
criteria and include colleges within its scope. Hence, the
reasoning of the 2nd respondent in Ext.P5 that a college is
situated within the vicinity of the proposed site, distance
between the boundary of the college and the retail outlet is less
than 30 m. and hence the outlet cannot be permitted is
untenable. I hold that the Controller of Explosives cannot refuse
approval for starting a new outlet for sale of petroleum products
for the reason that a college is situated within the distance
limits stipulated in the guidelines issued by Central Pollution
Control Board. The distance rule under Paragraph 'H' of the
guidelines dated 7.1.2020 would apply only in the cases of
schools, hospitals with more than 10 beds and designated
residential areas.
2025:KER:62117
11. Likewise, the next reason given by the 2nd
respondent is also fallacious. In the certificate issued on
7.2.2025, Secretary of the Municipality stated that the proposed
site 'falls under the mixed zone, (not under the residential
zone)'. Further it was stated that it is situated more than 50 m.
away from the nearby residential zone as per the master plan of
Mananthavady Municipality. In the certificate issued later on
25.2.2025, the Secretary stated that the 'proposed site/key
plan is not a designated residential area as per the local laws'. I
find it difficult to comprehend how the 2 nd respondent found a
contradiction in the terms of these certificates. In the first
certificate, apart from stating that the proposed site falls under
a mixed zone, Secretary further stated that it is not under the
residential zone. In the second certificate it was specifically
stated that the proposed site is not a designated residential area
as per the local laws. On both occasions the Secretary has
certified that the site is not within a residential area. In the
second certificate it was specified that the site is not a
2025:KER:62117
designated residential area as per the local laws, manifestly to
satisfy the requirement under the siting criteria stipulated by
the CPCB. There is no contradiction involved and in the light of
the certificate issued on 25.2.2025 the 2 nd respondent ought to
have concluded that the site is not within the designated
residential area.
12. The third reason stated in Ext.P5 is that the proposed
site is not compliant of the CPCB guidelines dated 7.1.2020. No
further explanation is given. Two other reasons stated are
obviously on the basis of CPCB guidelines. Therefore, the third
reason given can be considered only as a reiteration of the
reasons already stated.
13. In view of the above discussion, I hold that Ext.P5 is
legally not sustainable. I therefore set aside the same. The 2 nd
respondent is directed to consider the application of the
petitioner dated 22.2.2025 anew and to take a fresh decision.
The petitioner shall be free to submit a proper drawing as also
other required documents. In case the 2nd respondent requires
2025:KER:62117
any further clarification, he shall provide an opportunity to the
petitioner as well as the authorised representative of the 3 rd
respondent to appear before him and to explain their case. The
2nd respondent shall take a fresh decision in the matter as
directed above, keeping in mind the findings and observations in
this judgment within a period of one month from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
S.MANU
JUDGE
skj
2025:KER:62117
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12226/2025
PETITIONER's EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE OFFER LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED
21/09/20
Exhibit P2 COPY OF THE INITIAL APPROVAL OF 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 28/3/24 ALONG WITH
TYPED COPY
Exhibit P3 COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED
19/4/24
Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE APPLICATION REQUEST BEFORE
THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27/1/25
Exhibit P5 COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 24/2/25
Exhibit P6 COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT DATED 7/2/25
Exhibit P7 COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT DATED 25/2/25
Exhibit P8 COPY OF THE GUIDELINES OF THE 4TH
RESPONDENT DATED 7/1/20
Exhibit P9 COPY OF THE 2ND REJECTION LETTER OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 4/3/25
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure R1(a) True copy of the approved drawing
Annexure R1(b) A true copy of the letter dated
29.01.2025
