Madras High Court

S.Mariappa vs The State Human Rights Commission on 24 January, 2025

Author: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan

Bench: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan

                                                                       W.P.(MD) No.19228 of 2022



                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                              DATED : 24.01.2025

                                                       CORAM:

                           THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                          W.P.(MD) No.19228 of 2022
                                                    and
                                         W.M.P.(MD).No.14023 of 2022

                     S.Mariappa                                          .. Petitioner

                                                         Vs.

                     1.The State Human Rights Commission,
                       Rep.by its Registrar (Law)
                       No.143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai,
                       Greenways Road, Chennai – 600 028.

                     2.The State of Tamil Nadu,
                       Rep by Principal Secretary to Government,
                       Highways and Minor Ports Department,
                       Secretariat,
                       Fort.St.George,
                       Chennai – 600 009.

                     3.The District Revenue Officer,
                       Tenkasi District,
                       Tenkasi.

                     4.The Divisional Engineer,
                       Highways (C & M)
                       Tenkasi District.


                     _________
                     Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                              W.P.(MD) No.19228 of 2022



                     5.The Indian Oil Corporation Limited,
                       Rep by its Regional Manager,
                       Madurai Divisional Office,
                       No.2, Race Course Road,
                       Chokkikulam.                                       ... Respondents

                     Prayer:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
                     praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
                     records of the Impugned Proceedings in Ka.No:1020/2020/EvaA2 dated
                     15.07.2020 on the file of the 4 th respondent and quash the same as illegal
                     and further directing the 3rd and 4th respondents to issue No Objection
                     Certificate for the establishment of Petrol-Diesel retail outlet in land in
                     S.NO.573/1 situated at Panpoli Village, Senkottai Taluk, Tenkasi District.

                                       For Petitioner   :      M/s.Jeyamohan.K
                                                               Advocate
                                       For R1           :      Mr.Sankara Pandian
                                                               for M/s.Arul Vadivel
                                                               @ Sekar Associates.
                                       For R2 to R4     :      Mr.S.Shanmugavel
                                                               Additional Government Pleader
                                       For R5           :      Mr.K.Muralidharan
                                                               Advocate

                                                            ORDER

The writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned

proceedings in Ka.No:1020/2020/EvaA2, refused to grant No Objection

Certificate by the respondent No.4, by its communication dated

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

15.07.2020, on the ground that they proposed a place to set up a Petrol-

Diesel retail outlet is not fulfilled under the Rules and guidelines of

“Indian Road Congress 2009” (hereinafter referred as “IRC 12-2009”)

norms.

2. In the year 2018, the respondent No.5, published the

advertisement for establishment of Petrol-Diesel retail outlet in various

places, as a part of rural development by Oil Marketing Companies. The

petitioner applied for the same and he was granted with the dealership to

establish Petrol-Diesel retail outlet. Therefore, the petitioner had

purchased land comprised in S.No.573/1 situated at Panpoli Village,

Senkottai Taluk, Tenkasi District, in accordance with IRC 12-2009.

3. The petitioner ought to have obtained No Objection Certificate

from the Departments of Revenue, Police, Fire, the other Departments

had also issued No Objection Certificate to establish Petrol-Diesel retail

outlet, in the land purchased by the petitioner.

4. However, the respondent No.4/The Divisional Engineer,

Highways (C & M), Tenkasi District, refused to grant No Objection

Certificate for the reason that the said proposed place is not in

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

accordance with the guidelines of IRC 12-2009.

5. Further, the petitioner was informed that there is an intersection

road within 300 metres from the proposed site, which is against IRC

12-2009 norms. The norms of the IRC 12-2009, have no statutory force

and the said need not to be followed mandatorily.

6. On perusal of the counter filed by the respondent No.4 and the

submissions made by Mr.S.Shanmugavel, learned Additional

Government Pleader for R2 to R4, it revealed that proposed place for

setting up of fuel outlet is situated within the radius of 300 meters of

intersection of Rural Roads/Approach Roads, that is situated within the

radius of 260 metres. Therefore, the place does not comply with Section

4.5.1 of IRC 12-2009. Further, as per Section 5.2 (i), the size of the plot

should be 35m (frontage) x 35m (depth) but the proposed site size is

34.20m(frontage) x 35m (depth) which does not comply with IRC

12-2009 guidelines. This issue is already dealt by this Court reported in

[(2021) SCC Online Mad 2860] in the case of A.Periyasamy Vs. Deputy

Director and Ors and A.Periyasamy and Anr Vs. The District

Magistrate and Ors. The relevant portions of the order read as follows:-

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Indeed, several Division Bench judgments have been cited on either side and though there is an odd decision that the IRC:12-2009 guidelines ought to be adhered to, there are more Division Bench judgments that refer to the guidelines not being mandatory or a part of any prescribed statutory rules that would operate whenever a new petrol or diesel retail outlet is about to reopen. The Supreme Court judgment cited would also not apply since the tender terms in that case required any person wanting to open a retail store in terms of the advertisement to adhere to the applicable norms and the tender terms specifically provided for adherence to the rules and sub-rules of the local PWD. In view of the several Division Bench judgments of this court, including the one rendered on October 17, 2019 reported at 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 8587 (Durairaj Venkatachalam vs. Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department) and another rendered on W.P. (MD) No.2895 of 2020 (M.G.Saravanan W.P.Nos.34652 of 2019 and 7280 of 2020 vs. The Commissioner of Police) dated October 20, 2020, which clearly say that the IRC guidelines have no statutory force and may not be applied, the fact that the proposed site may be at an intersection and may cause traffic snarls and inconvenience to the general public, may not be a relevant factor.

13.To the extent that the no-objection certificate required the IRC:12-2009 guidelines to be followed, it can be said that in view of the recent consistent stand taken by this court that the IRC guidelines do not have any statutory force and are not mandatory, the breach of the IRC guidelines may not be fatal. It must also be recognized that notwithstanding the injunction

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

subsisting now, substantial construction had been carried out previously. Even if it is accepted that no equity can be claimed by the private oil company as a consequence of commencing the construction and even if the petitioner's version is accepted that the construction has not been completed, it does not appear that at the time that the proposal for setting up the retail outlet was submitted or at the time that the no- objection certificate was issued on November 11, 2019, it was necessary for the strict conditions which are now in place to be W.P.Nos.34652 of 2019 and 7280 of 2020 followed or imposed in connection with the setting up of a new fuel outlet.

7. After, considering the measurements of the subject proposed

site, the petitioner was granted with dealership to establish Petrol-Diesel

retail outlet. That apart, all other Departments had already issued No

Objection Certificate to establish Petrol-Diesel retail outlet for the

proposed site.

8. In view of the above, the order passed by the respondent No.4

cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed and is accordingly

quashed.

9. The respondent No.4 is directed to issue a No Objection

Certificate to the petitioner to set up Petrol-Diesel retail outlet in the

proposed site, comprised in S.No.573/1, situated at Panpoli Village,

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Senkottai Taluk, Tenkasi District within a period of two (2) weeks from

the date of receipt of copy of this order.

10. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition

stands allowed. No costs. Connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is also

closed.

24.01.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes nst To

1.The State Human Rights Commission, Rep.by its Registrar (Law) No.143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai, Greenways Road, Chennai – 600 028.

2.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by Principal Secretary to Government, Highways and Minor Ports Department, Secretariat, Fort.St.George, Chennai – 600 009.