[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Https://Www.Mhc.Tn.Gov.In/Judis ( ... on 26 February, 2026
Author: G. Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
W.A(md)Nos.1413 of 2023, 1023 of 2022, 306, 1036, 1858 of 2023 and
W.P(MD)No.4969 of 2023, 5590 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 05.02.2026
Pronounced on : 26.02.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
WA(MD)Nos.1413 of 2023, 1023 of 2022, 306, 1036, 1858,
W.P(MD)No.4969 of 2023 and 5590 of 2025
and
C.M.P(MD)Nos.11013,3484 of 2023, 8240 of 2022, 7892, 14212 of 2023
and W.M.P(MD)Nos.4634, 4635, 4636, 7298, 8315, 23421 of 2023, 7734
and 9889 of 2024
W.A(MD)No.1413 of 2023
1 The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by Principal Secretary to Government,
Highways and Minor Ports Department,
Secretariat, Fort.St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2 The District Revenue Officer,
Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.
3 The Divisional Engineer,
Highways (C and M),
Tenkasi District. Appellants/Respondents
2 to 4
-Vs-
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 03:15:17 pm )
W.A(md)Nos.1413 of 2023, 1023 of 2022, 306, 1036, 1858 of 2023 and
W.P(MD)No.4969 of 2023, 5590 of 2025
1 K. Kaleeswari ...1st Respondent/Writ
Petitioner
2 State Human Rights Commission,,
Rep by its Member, No. 143, P.S.
Kumarasamy Raja Salai,
Greenways Road,
Chennai - 600 028.
3 Indian Oil Corporation Limit
Ed,, Rep. by its Regional Manager, Madurai
Divisional Office, No.2, Race Course Road,
Chokkikulam,
Madurai-2. ...Respondents 2&3/
Respondents 1 & 5
Prayer:Writ Appeal filed Under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to prefer this
Memorandum of Grounds of writ appeal against the order passed by this
Court in WP(MD)No.16637 of 2022 dated 12.08.2022.
For Appellant(s):Mr.Veerakathiravan, AAG, assisted by
Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran, AGP
For R1 : Mr.K.Jeyamohan
For R2 : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian
For R3 : Mr.K.Muraleedharan
W.A(MD)No.306 of 2023
1 The Principal Secretary to
Government of Tamilnadu, (Highways and Minor
Ports Dept.,), Secretariat, Chennai.
2 The District Revenue Officer
Tenkasi District,
Tenkasi.
2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 03:15:17 pm )
W.A(md)Nos.1413 of 2023, 1023 of 2022, 306, 1036, 1858 of 2023 and
W.P(MD)No.4969 of 2023, 5590 of 2025
3 The Superintending Engineer
Tamil Nadu Highways Dept., A.R.Line,
Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.
4 The Divisional Engineer
Tamil Nadu Highways Dept.,
Tenkasi District ,
Tenkasi. ...Appellants/Respondents
1 to 4
Vs
1 U.Chakaravarthy ...1st Respondent/Writ
Petitioner
2 Territory Manager,
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited,
BG Goods Shed Road,
Thachanallur,
Tirunelveli-627358. ...2nd Respondent/5th
Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed Under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to prefer this
Memorandum of Grounds of Writ Appeal against the order passed by this
Court in WP(MD).No.19632 of 2021 dated 18-07-2022.
For Appellant(s):Mr.Veerakathiravan, AAG, assisted by
Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran, AGP
For R1 :Mr.S.C.Herold Sinch
For R2 :Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, ASGI,
assisted by Mr.S.Natesh Raaja
W.A(MD)No.1023 of 2022
1 The District Revenue Officer,
Tenkasi District.
Tenkasi.
3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 03:15:17 pm )
W.A(md)Nos.1413 of 2023, 1023 of 2022, 306, 1036, 1858 of 2023 and
W.P(MD)No.4969 of 2023, 5590 of 2025
2 The Divisional Engineer(C & M),
Highways Department, O/o. the
Divisional Engineer (H),
Tenkasi 627 811. ...Appellants/Respondents.2&3
-Vs-
1 Haris Hilten
2 S.Prince Joseph Raj ...Respondents 1&2/ Writ
Petitioners
3 Indian Oil Corporation Limit
Ed, Madurai Divisional Office, No.2, Race
Course Road, Chokkikulam,
Madurai 625 002. ...3rd Respondent/1st
Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed Under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to prefer this
Honble Court the Memorandum of Grounds of Appeal, against the order
dated 27-06-2022 passed by this Court in W.P(MD).No.20494 of 2021.
For Appellant(s):Mr.Veerakathiravan, AAG, assisted by
Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran, AGP
For R1 :Mr.K.Jeyamohan
For R3 :Mr.K.Muraleedharan
W.A(MD)No.1036 of 2023
The District Revenue Officer,
Trichy District, Trichy. ...Appellant/2nd
Respondent
Vs
1 S.Karunakaran, ...1st Respondent/Writ
Petitioner
2 Bharat Petroleum Corporation
4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 03:15:17 pm )
W.A(md)Nos.1413 of 2023, 1023 of 2022, 306, 1036, 1858 of 2023 and
W.P(MD)No.4969 of 2023, 5590 of 2025
Limited,, Trichy Retail Territory, 1st Floor,
Raj Towers, Karur Bye Pass Road,
Trichy 620 002. ...2nd Respondent/1st
Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to
prefer this Memorandum of Grounds of Writ Appeal against the order dated
01.11.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.(MD). No. 23183 of 2022.
For Appellant(s):Mr.Veerakathiravan, AAG, assisted by
Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran, AGP
For R1 :No appearance
For R2 :Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, ASGI,
assisted by Mr.S.Natesh Raaja
W.A(MD)No.1858 of 2023
1 The State of Tamilnadu
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Highways and Minor Ports Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai 9
2 The District Revenue Officer
Tenkasi,
Tenkasi District
3 The Divisional Engineer
Tamil Nadu Highways Department,
Tenkasi,
Tenkasi District. ...Appellants/Respondents
1,3&4
Vs
1 K.Syed Ali ...1st Respondent/Writ
5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 03:15:17 pm )
W.A(md)Nos.1413 of 2023, 1023 of 2022, 306, 1036, 1858 of 2023 and
W.P(MD)No.4969 of 2023, 5590 of 2025
Petitioner
2.The Deputy General Manager,
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited,
Madurai Retail Regional Office,
1st Floor, BSNL CMTS Bhavan,
70 Feet Road, Ellis Nagar,
Madurai-16. ...2nd Respondent/2nd
Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to
prefer this Memorandum of Grounds of Writ Appeal against the order passed
by this Court in WP(MD)No.28195 of 2022, dated 29.03.2023.
For Appellant(s):Mr.Veerakathiravan, AAG, assisted by
Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran, AGP
For R1 :Mr.A.Nawaz Khan
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
For R2 :Mr.K.Muraleedharan
W.P(MD)No.5590 of 2025
1 K.Gomathi Lakshmi ... Petitioner
Vs
1 The District Revenue Officer
Thanjavur.
2 The Divisional Engineer
Highways Department, Construction and
Maintenance, Panagal Building,
Thanjavur 613 001 ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 03:15:17 pm )
W.A(md)Nos.1413 of 2023, 1023 of 2022, 306, 1036, 1858 of 2023 and
W.P(MD)No.4969 of 2023, 5590 of 2025
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1
and 2 to grant No Objection Certificate to the petitioner for setting up of a
new Petroleum Retail Outlet in Survey No. 37B/6 Marungulam Village
Thanjavur Taluk and District.
For Petitioner :Mr.K.K.Senthil
For R1 & R2 :Mr.Veerakathiravan, AAG, assisted by
Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran, AGP
W.P(MD)No.4969 of 2023
1 M.Ashokkumar ...Petitioner
Vs
1 The Joint Chief Controller of Explosive,
A and D Wing, Block 1-8,
Shastri Bhavan, No.26,
Handdows Road,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai 600 006
2 The District Collector
Karur District,
Karur
3 The District Revenue Officer
/ Additional District Magistrate,
Karur District,
Karur
4 The Divisional Engineers High ways,
(Construction and Maintenance), Karur
District, Karur
5 The Superintendent of Police
Karur District, Karur
6 The District Fire Officer
Karur District, Karur
7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 03:15:17 pm )
W.A(md)Nos.1413 of 2023, 1023 of 2022, 306, 1036, 1858 of 2023 and
W.P(MD)No.4969 of 2023, 5590 of 2025
7 The Territory Manager Retail
Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited,
Karur District,
Karur
8 Mr.Subbiah Lakshmanan,
S/o. Lakshmanan,
D.No,4/d1, China Andarkoil Road,
Gandhi Nagar West,
Karur 639 001.
(R8 is Impleaded as Vide Court
Order Dated 17.07.2023 in W.M.P
(MD)No.7298 of 2923)
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India raying
this Court to issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
relating to the order passed by the 3rd respondent made in no objection
certificate in number R.Dis.No. D2/ 16144/2020 dated 03.10.2022 in favour
of the 7th respondent and quash the same and consequently forbearing the
respondent No.1 to 6 from issuing license permission and approval to the
7th respondent to setup and operate petroleum outlet for storage of petroleum
products Class A-15 KL Class B-20KL in Survey No. 347/B5A of
Thanthoni Village Karur District Karur.
For Petitioner :Mr.P.Pandiarajan
For R1 :Mr.P.Paulpandi
For R2 to R4&R6 :Mr.Veerakathiravan, AAG, assisted by
Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran, AGP
For R5 :Mr.K.Gnanasekaran, G.A.,(Crl.side)
For R7 :Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, ASGI,
assisted by Mr.S.Natesh Raaja
For R8 :Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan
For R9 & R10 :M/s.Madhuri Donti Reddy
8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 03:15:17 pm )
W.A(md)Nos.1413 of 2023, 1023 of 2022, 306, 1036, 1858 of 2023 and
W.P(MD)No.4969 of 2023, 5590 of 2025
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.)
The batch of writ appeals and the writ petitions centers around the
issue of No Objection Certificate(NOC) by the Highways Department and
the Revenue Department for commissioning the petrol and diesel outlets by
the dealers appointed by the Oil Corporation.
2.The sum and substance of the case in short is that, the petroleum
companies have appointed dealers for distribution of petroleum products
after scrutinising their eligibility and the potential to run the business. After
receipt of a letter of intent from the Oil Corporation, the dealers have
approached the respective authorities to issue No Objection Certificate for
the commission of their outlets. Their request were rejected either citing
Indian Road Congress Guidelines 2009(in short IRC guideline) or the
subsequent G.O passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu Highways and
Minor Ports(H.N2) Department in G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 24.02.2022 or
G.O.Ms.No.121, dated 12.04.2023. The dealers, being aggrieved, had
approached the High Court invoking Article 226 either seeking writ of
mandamus or writ of certiorarified mandamus as the case may be. Those writ
petitions were allowed. Being aggrieved, the State has preferred the intra
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 03:15:17 pm )
W.A(md)Nos.1413 of 2023, 1023 of 2022, 306, 1036, 1858 of 2023 and
W.P(MD)No.4969 of 2023, 5590 of 2025
Court appeal in W.A(MD)Nos.1023 of 2022 and 306, 1023, 1413 and 1858
of 2023.
3.W.P(MD)No.5590 of 2025 is filed by the dealers seeking a writ of
mandamus to direct the DRO and The Divisional Engineer, Highways
Department, to issue No Objection Certificate on his pending application.
Since the matter had already been pending before the Division Bench, the
learned single Judge has directed to tag this writ petition along with the writ
appeals dealing with the same subject matter. As a result, this writ petition in
W.P(MD)No.5590 of 2025 is tagged along with the appeals.
4.The facts in writ petition W.P(MD)No.4969 of 2023 is slightly on a
different footing. It is a case where 'No Objection Certificate' was issued in
favour of the dealer Mr.Subbaiah Lakshmanaa by the District Revenue
Officer. Challenging the same, the Public Interest Litigation filed citing that
'No Objection Certificate' to the dealer was issued without strict compliance
of IRC guideline.
5.The point for consideration in all these cases is whether the Indian
Road Congress Guidelines 12/2009 and the Government Order G.O.Ms.No.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 03:15:17 pm )
W.A(md)Nos.1413 of 2023, 1023 of 2022, 306, 1036, 1858 of 2023 and
W.P(MD)No.4969 of 2023, 5590 of 2025
25, dated 24.02.2022 have strict force of law and mandatory or
recommendatory in nature.
6.In Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Others -vs- Arti Devi Dangi
and Another, reported in 2016 (15) SCC 480, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that IRC Guidelines are mandatory. However, in a subsequent
judgment, the Division Bench of this Court in W.P(MD)No.19218 of 2019
etc batch cases(Durairaj Venkatachalu -vs- Chief Secretary and Others),
distinguished Arti Devi Dangi case, by pointing the State of Madhya Pradesh
has adopted the IRC Guidelines and framed Rules and sub Rules. Therefore,
insofar as the State of Madhya Pradesh, the guidelines of IRC has force of
law, whereas in Tamil Nadu in the absence of any such Rules, the IRC
Guidelines can only be recommendatory in nature but not mandatory in
nature.
7.Earlier in Tamil Nadu prescribing minimum distance restrictions for
establishing petroleum outlets, guidelines was issued through G.O.Ms.No.
256, dated 22.12.2015. After spate of judgments which has distinguished
Arti Devi Dangi's case and directions issued by the Court, to issue “No
Objection Certificate”, the distance restriction imposed in IRC Guidelines
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 03:15:17 pm )
W.A(md)Nos.1413 of 2023, 1023 of 2022, 306, 1036, 1858 of 2023 and
W.P(MD)No.4969 of 2023, 5590 of 2025
12/2009 was not able to be enforced. Hence, the Government of Tamil Nadu
had thought it fit to issue Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.25 Highways and
Minor Ports(HN.2) Department, dated 24.02.2022.
8.At this juncture, it is also appropriate to note that the threshold of
distance prescribed for new outlets got slightly modified subsequent in
G.O.Ms.No.121, dated 12.09.2023.
9.The contention of the learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the State is that, the Writ Court has allowed the writ petitions
by quashing the rejection order and had directed the RDO to issue No
Objection Certificate. It has miserably failed to properly appreciating the
object behind the distance regulation and the power conferred on the State to
regulate trade in petroleum products. The impugned order passed by the Writ
Court suffers from improper appreciation of the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arti Devi Dangi's case. On an mistaken
impression that the distance restriction recommended by the IRC is only to
petroleum outlets established on urban Highways and not on other roads, the
writ Courts have allowed the writ petitions filed by the dealers. Nonetheless,
in exercise of power under Article 166 of the Constitution to regulate the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 03:15:17 pm )
W.A(md)Nos.1413 of 2023, 1023 of 2022, 306, 1036, 1858 of 2023 and
W.P(MD)No.4969 of 2023, 5590 of 2025
petroleum trade in tune with the provisions of Petroleum Act and Rules
framed thereunder the Government Orders were issued. The distance
restrictions cannot be ignored compromising the road safety and public
interest.
10.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
dealers/respondents in the appeals filed by the State contended that neither
IRC Guidelines nor the subsequent G.O.No.25, dated 24.02.2022 and
G.O.Ms.No.121 dated 12.09.2023 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu,
can be equated with Rules or sub-Rules. Reading of G.O.Ms.No.25, dated
24.02.2022 it would clearly show that it is only a replica of the IRC
Guidelines and the source for exercising power to issue G.O., not mentioned
in the said G.Os. Therefore, the catena of judgments rendered by the Court
distinguishing Arti Devi Dangi's case to be uniformly followed.
11.Further, some of the learned counsels appearing for the dealers
submitted that the application for dealership was made during the year 2015.
The letter of intent was issued by the oil Company prior to the issuance of
G.O.Ms.No.25 dated 24.02.2022. Therefore, the application for NOC ought
to have been considered as per law prevailing guidelines, particularly,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 03:15:17 pm )
W.A(md)Nos.1413 of 2023, 1023 of 2022, 306, 1036, 1858 of 2023 and
W.P(MD)No.4969 of 2023, 5590 of 2025
without enforcing IRC Guidelines as mandatory. Whereas the NOC
applications were rejected either following the IRC Guidelines which is only
a recommendatory in nature or citing G.O.Ms.No.25 issued by the
Government issued on 24.02.2022 which has no backing of legislation.
12.Since the question under consideration concerns about the public
safety of road users qua the right of trade in petroleum product, it is
necessary to trace the background for the issuance of the guidelines by IRC
and the consequential Government orders, regulations, and circulars
regarding the safety distance prescribed for granting NOC for the installation
of petroleum retail outlets.
13.Section 4 of the Petroleum Act, 1934 empowers Central
Government to make rules for the import, transport and storage of petroleum.
In exercise of power conferred under the said Act, the Petroleum Rules,2002
were framed. Chapter VII, which deals with grant of licenses, the Rule
144(1) speaks about the ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) for grant of
license. As per the rules, for storage of petroleum and distribution in retail,
NOC from the District Authority is mandatory. The NOC of the District
Authority shall be in the proforma specified in Sub-Rule (7) of Rule 144.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 03:15:17 pm )
W.A(md)Nos.1413 of 2023, 1023 of 2022, 306, 1036, 1858 of 2023 and
W.P(MD)No.4969 of 2023, 5590 of 2025
Whereas, Sub-Rule (5) cast a duty on the District Authority to complete the
action for issue or refusal of the NOC, as expeditiously as possible, but not
later than 3 months from the date of receipt of application. NOC certificate
issued by the District Authority is valid for three years for consideration by
the Licensing Authority.
14.Part-A of the First Schedule in the Petroleum Rules 2002 tabulates
the Form of license, purpose for which license granted, authority empowered
to grant license and fees. Article 5 in that table, is in respect of license to
store petroleum in tank or tanks, in connection with pump outfit for fuelling
motor conveyances. The license in Form XIV to be issued by the Controller
authorized in this behalf by the Chief Controller. Reading of Form XIV
which is the license for retail outfits for petroleum, we find as many as 24
conditions prescribed for the licensee. Condition 8 in Form XIV prescribes
safety distance between two storage tanks of different class of petroleum and
between tank and unloading points. Whereas, in Form XV under the Rules
meant for the license to import and store petroleum in an installation, the
condition 10(a) and tables 1 and 2 thereat prescribes the safety distances to
be observed by the licensee.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 03:15:17 pm )
W.A(md)Nos.1413 of 2023, 1023 of 2022, 306, 1036, 1858 of 2023 and
W.P(MD)No.4969 of 2023, 5590 of 2025
15.That apart, the Government of India through Petroleum and
Explosive Safety Organisation( PESO ) time to time had issued SOP,
Guidelines and Circulars which touch upon the safety distance for
establishment of Petroleum retail outlets.
16.The Indian Roads Congress (IRC) is the premier body of Highways
Engineers set up in the year 1934. In tune with its Principal objectives to
provide suggestions and recommendations on matters concerned with the
construction and maintenance of highways and matters relating to roads and
road transport had in view of the increased speed of vehicles and for road
safety due to greater development of Highways road network under various
schemes had framed, the Indian Road Congress (IRC) norms 12/2009 for
location, layout and access to fuel stations along the National Highways,
State Highways, Major District Roads and Rural Roads in plain, rolling and
hilly terrain passing through rural and urban stretches including town and
cities.
17.Some of the States like Madyapradesh had brought the guidelines
of IRC 12/2009 as part of the Rules and some States like Tamil Nadu had
issued Government Orders directing the District Authority to follow the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 03:15:17 pm )
W.A(md)Nos.1413 of 2023, 1023 of 2022, 306, 1036, 1858 of 2023 and
W.P(MD)No.4969 of 2023, 5590 of 2025
safety distance restriction as mentioned in the respective GO’s.
18.In Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., and Others –vs – Arti Devi Dangi
and Another, cited supra, the question arose whether the Indian Oil
Corporation can insist on adherence to the IRC Guidelines in the absence of
any specific reference in the tender notification about the distance threshold /
restrictions mentioned in the IRC guidelines. In that contest, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held as under:-
“5. From the proceedings of the selection which shows the
manner in which the cases of the respondent-writ petitioners
were considered, which proceedings are on the record of the
case, it is clear and evident that even at the very initial stage of
consideration of the cases of the respondents, it is the
requirements spelt out under the IRC Guidelines that were taken
into account to hold that the respondents do not fulfil the
eligibility criteria prescribed by the tender conditions. The
respondent-writ petitioner Arti Devi Dangi was found not to have
satisfied the particular eligibility criteria as the land offered by
her was situated at a distance of 26 m away from the intersection
on the road whereas in the case of Mohan Singh Parmar the
distance was found to be about 600 m. The IRC Guidelines
stipulated that in urban areas where the station is to be located
along the State/National Highways the distance should be 1000 m
and in case of rural areas the distance should be 300m.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 03:15:17 pm )
W.A(md)Nos.1413 of 2023, 1023 of 2022, 306, 1036, 1858 of 2023 and
W.P(MD)No.4969 of 2023, 5590 of 2025
6.Though an argument has been sought to he made on
behalf of the respondent Mohan Singh Parmar that the location
of the station for which he had tendered is in an urban area and a
certificate in support of the said claim has been relied upon, we
do not find the aforesaid stand to be substantiated by the
certificate [issued by the Municipal Council, Pankhedi
(Kalapipal) District Shajapur which has been placed on record of
the present appeal inasmuch as the same only indicates that the
volume of traffic on the road (about 300 vehicles).
7.If the clauses in the advertisement required a tenderer to
fulfil all requirements under the rules and sub-rules of PWD and
if what was suggested/recommended by IRC has been adopted by
the State PWD and the said norms are in the interest of public
safety and would facilitate smooth movement of traffic, it will be
difficult to hold that the rules and sub-rules of PWD
contemplated in the advertisement do not embrace the IRC
Guidelines either because there was no specific mention thereof
in the tender documents or the same do not have a statutory
flavour. We, therefore, hold that the fulfilment of the
requirements spelt out by the IRC Guidelines relevant to the
present cases to be a mandatory requirement of the tender
conditions. Coupled with the above what we find is that the
action of the appellant Corporation cannot be said to be either
arbitrary or unreasonable inasmuch as a uniform standard has
been applied to all the applicants and in the present two appeals
in question no candidate has been found to be eligible upon
application of the said uniform standard i.e. the IRC norms. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 03:15:17 pm )
W.A(md)Nos.1413 of 2023, 1023 of 2022, 306, 1036, 1858 of 2023 and
W.P(MD)No.4969 of 2023, 5590 of 2025
action of the appellant Corporation, therefore, not being in any
manner arbitrary or unreasonable the power of judicial review
vested in the High Court ought to have been exercised with due
circumspection.
8.A perusal of the orders of the High Court indicates that
the only basis on which the decision of the appellant Corporation
has been faulted with is that the IRC Guidelines are not
mandatory. We fail to see how such a view can he sustained
keeping in mind the provisions of the advertisement quoted
above. the purport and object of the said norms; the uniform
application of the same to all the tenderers by the appellant
Corporation and above all the requirements of public interest.”
19.After Arthi's judgment, the Courts in India following the dictum
laid in Arti Devi Dangi case, as law declared under Article 141 of the
Constitution, upheld decisions of the District Authorities declining NOC for
non adherence of the IRC guidelines. One such judgment by a Division
Bench of this Court is in W.P.No.691 of 2017 dated 18.01.2019. In the said
judgement, this Court made the following observations:-
"The writ petition was filed by the petitioner in Public
Interest for seeking a direction to the respondents to comply with
the guidelines contained in the Indian Road Congress (IRC)
Circular No. 12/2009 for the issuance of No Objection Certificate
for site approvals of Road-side Petroleum outlets by Oil
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 03:15:17 pm )
W.A(md)Nos.1413 of 2023, 1023 of 2022, 306, 1036, 1858 of 2023 and
W.P(MD)No.4969 of 2023, 5590 of 2025
Marketing Companies (OMC) within the State of Tamilnadu.
2.The petitioner has also filed a memo in this court today
along with Exhibit 2 viz., Memo No 4751/Contracts-1/2018,
dated 5.4.2018 in which the Chief Engineer of construction and
Maintenance of Highways Department of the State has clarified
that for issuance of No Objection Certificate for Road side
Petroleum Retail Outlets by Oil Marketing Companies (OMCS)
or any other Agency in respect of Government Highways Roads
(i.e.,) State Highways, State Highways Urban, Major District
Roads, Other District Roads, Other District Roads (Sugarcane
Roads), the guidelines issued by IRC 12-2009 shall be strictly
followed for passing orders. The earlier Circular issued vide
Exhibit 1 dated 5.4.2018 itself gave the guidelines only for the
Government Highways not including he other District Roads, etc.
3.Since a clarification has been issued by the Department
concerned, the prayer made in the writ. Since a clarification has
been issued by the petition stands granted by the respondent.
Therefore we are of the view that no further direction is
necessary in the present PIL writ petition. Accordingly, it is
closed. No order as to costs. The connected miscellaneous
petition is also closed."
20.Whileso, when notification by the Oil Corporations like BP, IOC
and HP inviting applications for appointing dealers in Tamil Nadu was
advertised in dailies, same came to be challenged by Durairaj
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 03:15:17 pm )
W.A(md)Nos.1413 of 2023, 1023 of 2022, 306, 1036, 1858 of 2023 and
W.P(MD)No.4969 of 2023, 5590 of 2025
Venkatachalam -vs- The Additional Chief Secretary, and others, in
W.P(MD)Nos.19218 of 2019, as a public interest litigation. Few more joined
him and all those petitions were taken up together as a batch and common
order was passed on 17.10.2019. In this order, the Division Bench of this
Court made a deviation and held that the guidelines of IRC is only
recommendatory in nature and does not carry the force of law. Unless those
guidelines are incorporated in the relevant Rules, the distance threshold is
only recommendatory. The relevant portion of the judgement is extracted
below:-
“42. No doubt, the Indian Roads Congress is a multi-
member body with experts in the field. The introductory passage
of the 2009 guidelines, namely, IRC:12-2009, states that the
Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways revised
substantially the norms for location, layout and access to fuel
stations along the National Highways keeping in view the
increased speed of vehicles and greater need for road safety due
to development of National Highways network and the norms
were circulated in October, 2003. Subsequently, the Transport
Planning, Traffic Engineering and Road Safety Committee
decided that the draft for the revised standard might be updated
by incorporating the present guidelines and accordingly, the
Council approved the 2009 guidelines in its meeting.
44. The Indian Roads Congress, Multi-Member Body,
consists of Experts, have framed these guidelines from time to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 03:15:17 pm )
W.A(md)Nos.1413 of 2023, 1023 of 2022, 306, 1036, 1858 of 2023 and
W.P(MD)No.4969 of 2023, 5590 of 2025
time. Their recommendations have to fructify into statutory
notifications or orders or by suitable amendment to the
legislation. Until the recommendations fructify into anyone of
these, they continue to remain as guidelines and are to be
interpreted as recommendatory and not mandatory. The Experts
have made a suggestion with laudable intentions and the ultimate
reason for doing so is to ensure safe road traffic. Therefore, the
respondents would not be justified in refusing to look into the
guidelines.
45........There should be a statutory duty cast upon the
respondents to do a particular act. Upon failure, the arms of this
Court are long enough to command to do that duty. In the instant
case, the petitioner seeks for a direction from us to compel a
Statutory Authority, namely, the State or the Central Government
Authority and the Oil Corporations to follow a procedure, which
is in the nature of the guidelines framed by an Expert Body and
published in the year 2009. Therefore, in the facts of the present
case, no direction can be issued to compel the respondents to
adopt the guidelines of the Indian Roads Congress in its entirety.
47. It is no doubt true that sufficient thought process has
gone into before framing 2009 guidelines. However, we are not
experts to state that the guidelines are far superior than the
statutory provisions or the statutory provisions are far superior
than the guidelines. Admittedly, ten years have passed by, after
the guidelines were published. There have been various
developments in the country insofar as road infrastructure is
concerned. Several methodologies have been adopted by the both
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 03:15:17 pm )
W.A(md)Nos.1413 of 2023, 1023 of 2022, 306, 1036, 1858 of 2023 and
W.P(MD)No.4969 of 2023, 5590 of 2025
State Highways and National Highways Authority of India.
Therefore, we are of the clear view that no direction can be
issued to the respondents by compelling them to follow the
guidelines of the Indian Roads Congress published in the year
2009.
48. In the case of Arti Devi Dangi (supra), the question
was whether the insistence by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited
on adherence to the Indian Roads Congress (IRC) Guidelines
requiring maintenance of specific distance between the proposed
retail outlet and the median of the road was correct in view of the
fact that in the advertisement and the brochure there was no
specific reference to the said guidelines and no specific mention
was made that the same would have to be complied with by a
tenderer. The Honourable Supreme Court noted that the IRC
Guidelines have been adopted by the PWD, Madhya Pradesh and
therefore, it was argued by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited
that the respondents ought to have verified all such requirements
that the rules and sub-rules of PWD stipulate including the
requirements spelt out under the IRC Guidelines.
50.In our considered view, the decision in the case of Arti
Devi Dangi (supra), at the first instance appears to hold that the
IRC Guidelines are in effect mandate. However, on a closure
reading of the decision, one important fact, which should not be
lost sight of was that in the said case, the proposed retail outlet
was to be located in the State of Madhya Pradesh and the Public
Works Department of Madhya Pradesh have adopted the IRC
Guidelines and they have framed rules and sub-rules. These rules
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 03:15:17 pm )
W.A(md)Nos.1413 of 2023, 1023 of 2022, 306, 1036, 1858 of 2023 and
W.P(MD)No.4969 of 2023, 5590 of 2025
and sub- rules were binding on the applicant. In such
circumstances, the Honourable Supreme Court held that though
the tender notification did not expressly spell out the
requirements to comply with the IRC Guidelines, the same having
been adopted by the State Pubic Works Department, the
applicant cannot state that the compliance of such condition was
not an essential condition of tender.
21.After this Judgment, the Government of Tamil Nadu had thought fit
to issue G.O.25 dated 24.02.2022 which reads as under:-
“ORDER:
In the letters read above, the Chief Engineer (Construction &
Maintenance), Highways Department has furnished a proposal for
Guidelines / Norms to issue NOC for Highways Department in
Tamil Nadu and requested the Government to issue the setting up
of road side Petroleum Retail Outlets alongside SH/MDR/ODR
roads under guidelines / norms for issue of No Objection
Certificate / access permission to fuel stations (Petrol/Diesel retail
outlets, Gas retail outlets, Electrical Vehicle (EV) Charging
stations and biofuel pumps with or without Rest Area Amenities
etc.) along sides of roads maintained by Tamil Nadu Highways
Department.
2. The Government after careful examination of the proposal
of the Chief Engineer (Construction & Maintenance), Highways
Department issue the following guidelines/norms as criteria for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 03:15:17 pm )
W.A(md)Nos.1413 of 2023, 1023 of 2022, 306, 1036, 1858 of 2023 and
W.P(MD)No.4969 of 2023, 5590 of 2025
issuing No Objection Certificate (NOC) / access permissions to
fuel stations (Petrol/Diesel retail outlets, Gas retail outlets,
Electrical Vehicle (EV) Charging stations and biofuel pumps with
or without Rest Area Amenities etc.) alongside SHs/MDRs/ODRs
maintained by Tamil Nadu Highways Department.
S.No. Distance Norms Norms Applicable
(in meters)
NON-URBAN(Rural) STRETCHES:PLAIN AND ROLLING TERRAIN
1. Intersection with Shs/MDRs/ODRs 300(SHs)
200(MDRs/ODRs
NON-URBAN(Rural) STRETCHES:HILLY/MOUNTAINOUS TERRAIN
2 Intersection with any category of road (Irrespective of 100
carriageway width)
URBAN STRETCHES:PLAIN AND ROLING/HILLY/MOUNTAINOUS TERRAIN
3. Intersection with any category of road (Irrespective of 100
carriageway width)
GENERAL CRITERIA
4. Any barrier including that of Toll Plaza and Railway 500
Level Crossing
5. Distance from the start of approach road of ROB 200
6. Start of approach road of Grade Separator/Flyover 300
7. Distance between two fuel stations Rural/Urban/Hilly
(Shs)
(MDRs/ODRs)
(Both undivided and
divided c/w)
8. Acceleration/Deceleration Lane Rural
100(acceleration)
70(deceleration)
Urban/Hilly:
Dispensed with
9. Size of plot 35 x 35(Rural)
20 x 20(Urban/Hilly)
Except these modifications all other provisions of IRC:12-2016
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 03:15:17 pm )
W.A(md)Nos.1413 of 2023, 1023 of 2022, 306, 1036, 1858 of 2023 and
W.P(MD)No.4969 of 2023, 5590 of 2025
will remain applicable. The Highway Authority will be as defined
in the tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001.”
22.The above GO, was later amended making minor change through
G.O Ms 121 dated 12/09/2023. The amended GO reads as below:-
“ORDER
In the Government order first read above, orders have
been issued for the guidelines/norms for issuing No Objection
Certificato (NOC) / access permissions to fuel stations
(Petrol/Diesel retail outlets, Gas retail outlets, Electrical Vehicle
(EV) charging MDRS/ODRs maintained by Tamil Nadu
Highways Department.
2.The Chief Engineer (Construction and Maintenance),
Highways Department in his and email dated 03.05.2023
requested the Government to consider relaxation to certain
considering the process of expansion of petroleum outlet network.
eral Manager (RS) and Divisional Sales Head of IOCL, Chennai
have been consulted in this regard, and accordingly, they have
submitted their request for consideration, vide Letter dated
15.06.2023. Based on the above representation, the Chief
Engineer (Construction and Maintenance) has requested the
Government to Consider to issue requisite amendment to the
guidelines issued vide G.O. (Ms) No. 25, highways and Minor
Ports (HN2) Department, dated 24.02.2022, in the criteria for
Issuing NOC/access permissions to fuel stations (Petrol/Diesel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 03:15:17 pm )
W.A(md)Nos.1413 of 2023, 1023 of 2022, 306, 1036, 1858 of 2023 and
W.P(MD)No.4969 of 2023, 5590 of 2025
Retail Outlets, Gas Retail Outlets, Electrical Vehicle (EV)
charging stations and bio fuel pumps with or without Rest Area
Amenities etc.) alongside SHs/MDRS/ODRs maintained by Tamil
Nadu Highways Department.
3.Based on the proposal of the Chief Engineer
(Construction and Maintenance), Highways Department above,
the following amendment is issued to para 2 of the G.O. first read
above.
AMENDMENT
In para 2 of the G.O. first read above, the following
modification is issued in the critferta only in respect of ODRs for
issuing No Objection Certificate(NOC)/access permissions to fuel
stations (Petrol/Diesel Retail Outlets, Gas Retail Outlets,
Electrical Vehicle (EV) charging stations and biofuel pumps with
or without Rest Ares Amenities, etc) alongside SH?/MDR/ODRs
maintained by Tamil Nadu Highways Department
S.No. Distance Norms As per G.O. Relaxation Decision of
(Ms)No.25, dt. sought By BOE (182)(in
24.02.2022(in IOCL (in Meters)
Meters) Meters)
NON-URBAN (Rural) STRETCHES: PLAIN AND ROLLING TERRAIN
1. Intersection with 300 (SHs) - No change for
Shs/MDR/ODR 200 100 SHs and MDRs
(MDRs/ODRs) (MDRs/ODRs) 100(ODR)
URBAN STRETCHES:PLAIN AND ROLLING/HILLY/MOUNTAINOUS
TERRAIN
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 03:15:17 pm )
W.A(md)Nos.1413 of 2023, 1023 of 2022, 306, 1036, 1858 of 2023 and
W.P(MD)No.4969 of 2023, 5590 of 2025
2. Intersection with 100 Dispensation No change
any category of
road(irrespective
of carriageway
width)
3. Distance between Rural/Urban/ Rural: Rural/Urban/Hil
two fuel stations Hilly: 100 ly
300(SHs) (MDRs/ODRs) No change for
200 SHs and MDRs
(MDRs/ODRs) Urban
(Both 100(ODR)
undivided and Dispensation (Both undivided
divided and divided
carriageway) carriageway)
4. Acceleration/ Rural: Rural Rural:
Deceleration lane 100 SH SH/MDR
(acceleration) Provision of No change for
70(deceleratio ADL wherever Shs/MDRs
n) ROW is ODR
Urban/Hilly available Provision of
Dispensed MDR/ODR angular
with Provision of entry/exit with
angular paver/bitumino
entry/exit with us surface
paver/bitumino beyond
us surface. roadway and up
Speed brakers to the plot.
and signages Speed brakers
will be and signages
installed should be
before the installed before
entry and exit the entry and
exit
5. Size of Plot 35 x 35(Rural) Rural: No change
20 x 20 MDR/ODR
(Urban/Hilly) 25 x 25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 03:15:17 pm )
W.A(md)Nos.1413 of 2023, 1023 of 2022, 306, 1036, 1858 of 2023 and
W.P(MD)No.4969 of 2023, 5590 of 2025
23.The legal and factual matrix stated above leads to the irresistible
conclusion that the recommendation and guideline of IRC 12/2009, though it
was not made as a Rule in some States including Tamil Nadu, those
guidelines cannot be brushed aside on the ground that it has no legal force.
IRC is a technical body recognised even prior to independence. Its
recommendation and guidelines matters to ensure road safety. The Petroleum
Act and Rules, envisage that no outlet can be installed without clearance
from the District Authority and other agencies mentioned. No doubt legally
speaking IRC guidelines cannot be treated par with subordinate legislation
only to that extent, we have no second opinion over the observations made
by the Division Bench in the batch of writ petitions in W.P(MD)No.19218 of
2019(Durairaj Venkatachalam -vs- Additional Chief Secretary). However,
the Revenue Authority, while scrutinising the application for grant of No
Objection Certificate, cannot issue No Objection Certificate ignoring the
guidelines of IRC. More so, when the Government Order has been passed in
exercise of power under Article 166 of the Constitution to bridge the
vacuum. Hence, after issuance of G.O., reasoning to ignore IRC guidelines
stands erased.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 03:15:17 pm )
W.A(md)Nos.1413 of 2023, 1023 of 2022, 306, 1036, 1858 of 2023 and
W.P(MD)No.4969 of 2023, 5590 of 2025
24.The comparative chart in respect of the distance threshold of the
cases under consideration annexed to the judgment discloses the ground
reality(Annexure-A).
25.The learned counsels appearing for the retailers contended that the
outlets proposed to be established are on rural roads. Therefore, IRC
guidelines will not apply. In one of the cases, the learned Single Judge has
also accepted that IRC guidelines is only for Highways. On reading of IRC
guidelines, we find it is not confined to highways alone. In fact 4.5.1 of the
IRC Guidelines 12/2009 deals with Non – urban(Rural) Stretches
encompasses the plain and rolling terrain, intersection with
Nhs/SHs/MDRs/City Roads, intersection with Rural Roads/approach roads
to private and Hilly/Mountainous Terrain and public properties and 4.5.2
deals with Urban Stretches, urban area with population of more than 20,000
and less than one lakh, intersection with any category of roads of
carriageway width of 3.5 m and above, intersection with roads of
carriageway width of less than 3.5 m, intersection with any category of road
(irrespective of carriageway width).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 03:15:17 pm )
W.A(md)Nos.1413 of 2023, 1023 of 2022, 306, 1036, 1858 of 2023 and
W.P(MD)No.4969 of 2023, 5590 of 2025
26.So, the writ petitions which are allowed on misunderstanding that
guidelines only applies to highways need to be interfered. Similarly, the writ
petition directing to issue NOC to the applicants ignoring the IRC guidelines
and the subsequent G.O passed on 07.07.2022, also to be interfered.
27.In some cases the applications for NOC was prior to the date
G.O.Ms.No.25, ie., 07.07.2022. Counsels therefore represented that their
applications ought to have been considered based on the Rules and
Guidelines existing on the date of letter of intent and not the date of
applications. This submission also to be rejected because the application for
NOC has to be taken up for consideration as per Rule 144 of Petroleum
Rules. NOC is issued only on applications with all necessary particulars. The
rule mandates the District Authority to consider the application within a
period of three months as per Rule 144(5) of the Act, and this NOC will be
valid for next three years from the date of issuance of NOC. On the date of
application, if the District Authority has found that there is shortage of
compliance regarding the distance threshold as envisaged in IRC Guidelines,
he had the discretion to relax it upon inspection, in cases he is satisfied that
the relaxation of the distance restriction will not cause any endanger to the
safety of the road users. This leeway was available only till the passing of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 03:15:17 pm )
W.A(md)Nos.1413 of 2023, 1023 of 2022, 306, 1036, 1858 of 2023 and
W.P(MD)No.4969 of 2023, 5590 of 2025
G.O.Ms.No.25 dated 24.02.2022. After passing of G.O.25, the guidelines
incorporated through the executive order will have the force of law and it is
no more directory but it is mandatory. Therefore, Writ Appeals and the Writ
Petitions are disposed of with the following directions.
(i)For considering the issuance of NOC, the date of application is the
criteria and not the date of letter of intent issued by the Oil Corporation. If
the application for NOC considered and refused citing IRC guidelines same
need no interference. IRC Guidelines though not be mandatory, it cannot be
ignored while considering the applications for NOC. Retailers has to make
fresh application who are the writ petitioners in W.P(MD)Nos.166637 of
2022, 20494 of 2021, 19632 of 2021, 23183 and 28195 of 2022.
(ii)The retailers are permitted to submit fresh application for No
Objection Certificate(NOC), if they are otherwise eligible.
(iii)On receipt of such applications, the District Authority shall
consider and pass appropriate orders, in the light of the amended
G.O.Ms.No.121, dated 12.09.2023 within 30 days from the date of receipt of
the application.
(iv)In respect of W.P(MD)No.5590 of 2025, the petitioner has not
eligible for NOC in view of G.O.121 and the same is explicitly mentioned in
the order of refusal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 03:15:17 pm )
W.A(md)Nos.1413 of 2023, 1023 of 2022, 306, 1036, 1858 of 2023 and
W.P(MD)No.4969 of 2023, 5590 of 2025
(v)License granted based on NOC issued prior to 25.02.2022 to
remain undisturbed.
28.In the result:
(i)W.A(MD)No.1413 of 2023: The writ appeal in W.A(MD)No.1413 of
2023 directed against the writ petition in W.P(MD)No.16637 of 2022. The
writ petitioner, in this case one K.Kaleeswari, filed Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus to quash the order of the DRO dated 26.06.2020 rejecting the
NOC granted to her earlier for establishing petroleum outlet on the ground
that the location of the proposed petroleum outlet is not in accordance to the
Indian Road Congress 12/2009 norms. Earlier this writ petitioner filed
W.P(MD)No.19145 of 2021 and the same was dismissed citing pendency of
the writ appeal before the Division Bench. Prior to this, being aggrieved, by
refusal to give NOC by the Highways Department citing IRC 12/2009 norms
had approached Human Rights Commission and got a favourable order. The
order of State Human Rights Commission challenged by way of writ petition
in W.P(MD)No.20240 of 2021 by the Government and the order of the
Human Rights Commission was stayed by the Division Bench. While fact
being so, the writ petition in W.P(MD)No.16637 of 2022, which is the
subject matter of the present Writ Appeal in W.A(MD)No.1413 of 2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 03:15:17 pm )
W.A(md)Nos.1413 of 2023, 1023 of 2022, 306, 1036, 1858 of 2023 and
W.P(MD)No.4969 of 2023, 5590 of 2025
Since in this case NOC application rejected following IRC Guidelines, the
writ petitioner had to make fresh application and the same to be considered
in the light of G.O.Ms.No.121.
(ii)W.A(MD)No.1023 of 2022: This writ appeal is directed against the
orderdated 27.06.2022 passed in W.P(MD)No.20494 of 2021. The writ
petitioners, in this case, filed Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the
order of the Divisional Engineer, Tenkasi, dated 13.08.2021 rejecting the
NOC by citing Indian Road Congress 12/2009 norms. While fact being so,
the writ petition in W.P(MD)No.20494 of 2021, which is the subject matter
of the present Writ Appeal. In this case, the order impugned was passed on
27.06.2022, ie subsequent to G.O.Ms.No.25 dated 24.02.2022. Hence, the
order dated 27.06.2022 passed in W.P(MD)No.20494 of 2021 is set aside
and the writ appeal stands allowed. The writ petitioner is permitted to make
fresh application and the same to be considered in the light of G.O.121.
(iii)W.A(MD)No.306 of 2023: The writ appeal in W.A(MD)No.306 of 2023
directed against the writ petition in W.P(MD)No.19632 of 2021. The writ
petitioner, in this case U.Chakaravarthy, filed Writ of Mandamus to direct
the respondents to grant NOC based on his application. The prayer was
allowed by the writ Court directing the third respondent DRO to issue NOC.
This order was passed on 18.07.2021, ie subsequent to G.O.Ms.No.25 dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 03:15:17 pm )
W.A(md)Nos.1413 of 2023, 1023 of 2022, 306, 1036, 1858 of 2023 and
W.P(MD)No.4969 of 2023, 5590 of 2025
24.02.2022. Hence, the order dated 18.07.2021 passed in W.P(MD)No.19632
of 2021 is set aside and the writ appeal stands allowed. The writ petitioner is
permitted to make fresh application for NOC and the same to be considered
in the light of G.O.121.
(iv)W.A(MD)No.1036 of 2023:This writ appeal in W.A(MD)No.1036 of
2023 directed against the writ petition in W.P(MD)No.23183 of 2022. The
writ petitioner, in this case S.Karunakaran, filed Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus to quash the order of the DRO dated 14.06.2022 rejecting the
application for NOC. The writ petition in W.P(MD)No.23183 of 2022, was
allowed by the writ Court directing the second respondent DRO to issue
NOC. This order was passed on 01.11.2022, ie subsequent to G.O.Ms.No.25
dated 24.02.2022. Hence, the order dated 01.11.2022 passed in W.P(MD)No.
23183 of 2022 is set aside and the writ appeal stands allowed. The writ
petitioner is permitted to make fresh application for grant of NOC and the
same to be considered in the light of G.O.121.
(v)W.A(MD)No.1858 of 2023:This writ appeal in W.A(MD)No.1858 of
2023 directed against the writ petition in W.P(MD)No.28195 of 2022. The
writ petitioner, in this case K.Syed Ali, filed Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus to quash the order of the Divisional Engineer, Tenkasi, dated
29.11.2022 rejecting the NOC. The writ petition in W.P(MD)No.28195 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 03:15:17 pm )
W.A(md)Nos.1413 of 2023, 1023 of 2022, 306, 1036, 1858 of 2023 and
W.P(MD)No.4969 of 2023, 5590 of 2025
2022, which is the subject matter of the present writ appeal, was allowed by
the writ Court directing the third respondent DRO to issue NOC. This order
was passed on 29.03.2023, ie subsequent to G.O.Ms.No.25 dated
24.02.2022. Hence, the order dated 29.03.2023 passed in W.P(MD)No.28195
of 2022 is set aside and the writ appeal stands allowed. The writ petitioner is
permitted to make fresh application for NOC and the same to be considered
in the light of G.O.121.
(vi)W.P(MD)No.5590 of 2025: This Writ Petition is filed by K.Gomathi
Lakshmi, seeking mandamus to direct the District Revenue Officer,
Thanjavur and the Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Thanjavur, to
grant NOC for setting up a new petroleum retail outlet in Survey No.37B/6,
Marungulam Village, Thanajvur Taluk. The petitioner has sought for NOC
for establishing the petroleum retail outlet on the basis of letter of intent
issued by Nayara Energy. The second respondent, the Divisional Engineer,
Thanajvur has declined to grant NOC citing G.O.Ms.No.121, Highways and
Minor Ports(HN.2), Department, dated 12.09.2023. Being aggrieved, the
present writ petition is filed to issue NOC without insisting on compliance of
G.O.Ms.No.121. The prayer sought for in the writ petition is deserve to be
dismissed, since the application for seeking NOC filed subsequent to the
issuance of G.O.Ms.No.25 dated 24.02.2022, it was later modified by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 03:15:17 pm )
W.A(md)Nos.1413 of 2023, 1023 of 2022, 306, 1036, 1858 of 2023 and
W.P(MD)No.4969 of 2023, 5590 of 2025
G.O.Ms.No.121. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. Insofar as
W.P.(MD)No.4969 of 2023 or cases of similar facts, if the license already
granted prior to 24.02.2022 based on NOC issued, same need not be
interfered. If NOC issued prior to 24.02.2022, but license issued after
24.02.2022, the appropriate authority shall re-examine the viability of the
license granted and take necessary decision. If the license is not yet granted,
it is for the appropriate authority to examine whether the applicant satisfies
the rigor of G.O.Ms.No.121, dated 12.09.2023. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[G.J., J.] & [K.K.R.K., J.]
26.02.2026
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes
Ns
To
1 The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by Principal Secretary to Government,
Highways and Minor Ports Department,
Secretariat, Fort.St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2 The District Revenue Officer,
Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.
3 The Divisional Engineer,
Highways (C and M),
Tenkasi District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 03:15:17 pm )
W.A(md)Nos.1413 of 2023, 1023 of 2022, 306, 1036, 1858 of 2023 and
W.P(MD)No.4969 of 2023, 5590 of 2025
DR.G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
AND
K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
Ns
WA(MD)Nos.1413 of 2023, 1023 of 2022, 306, 1036, 1858,
W.P(MD)No.4969 of 2023 and 5590 of 2025
and
C.M.P(MD)Nos.11013,3484 of 2023, 8240 of 2022, 7892, 14212 of 2023
and W.M.P(MD)Nos.4634, 4635, 4636, 7298, 8315, 23421 of 2023, 7734
and 9889 of 2024
26.02.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 03:15:17 pm )
