Recently, the Kerala High Court dealt with a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application to establish a petroleum retail outlet at Mananthavady. The dispute primarily turned on how the Central Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as “CPCB”) guidelines ought to be interpreted, and whether the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation (hereinafter referred to as “PESO”) was justified in refusing approval by including “colleges” within the siting criteria, despite their absence from the text of the guidelines.
Brief Facts:
The case arose from the Petitioner’s application to establish a petroleum retail outlet on her land in Mananthavady. The Indian Oil Corporation approved her application, and the District Collector issued a No Objection Certificate in accordance with Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002. The Joint Chief Controller of Explosives also granted initial approval. However, when the proposal was placed before the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives for final sanction, the application was rejected by order.
The rejection was founded on three grounds: that the proposed outlet was situated within 30 metres of the boundary of Newman College, that the site was recorded as being in a “mixed zone” and not conclusively certified as outside a designated residential area, and that the location was stated to be “not compliant with CPCB guidelines”. Aggrieved by the refusal, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the legality of the order.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the rejection was unsustainable. It was stated that the CPCB guidelines explicitly refer only to schools, hospitals with ten beds or more, and designated residential areas in prescribing the siting distance, and colleges are conspicuously absent. Hence, reliance on proximity to a college was misplaced. It was further submitted that the Secretary of the local authority had certified the land as part of a mixed zone, not a residential area, and that the Controller failed to furnish any concrete reasoning as to how the site violated CPCB norms.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The Deputy Solicitor General, appearing for PESO, defended the order of rejection. It was contended that the petitioner had misrepresented facts by omitting the college boundary wall in the site plan submitted for initial approval, thereby securing approval by suppression. It was also argued that “educational institutions” in general should be read into the siting criteria, making the college’s proximity a valid ground for rejection. The respondents additionally submitted that the two municipal certificates issued by the Secretary were contradictory regarding zoning, thus creating uncertainty about the site’s compliance with the criteria.
Observations of the Court:
The Court analysed paragraph H of the CPCB guidelines, which states “new Retail Outlets shall not be located within a radial distance of 50 meters 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.”
It held that the guideline specifically mentions only schools, hospitals, and designated residential areas. Colleges were not included, and the CPCB itself had clarified before the National Green Tribunal that “colleges have not been included considering schools and hospitals (10 beds and above), as sensitive locations”. Therefore, rejection on the ground of proximity to a college was untenable.
The Court further noted that both municipal certificates consistently confirmed the site was not a designated residential area, and there was no contradiction. As for the claim of non-compliance with CPCB norms, the Court held that no valid explanation had been provided beyond repeating earlier grounds.
The decision of the Court:
The Court concluded that the rejection order suffered from legal infirmities and was “legally not sustainable.” It accordingly quashed the order and directed the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives to reconsider the petitioner’s application afresh, permitting her to submit proper drawings and documents, and to decide the matter after hearing both sides. The writ petition was thus disposed of with directions.
Case Title: Bindhu Kuniparambath v. The Joint Chief Controller of Explosives and Ors.
Citation: 2025 Latest Caselaw 5671 Ker
Case No: W.P.(C). No.12226 of 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice S. Manu
Counsel for the Petitioner: Adv. R. Sunil Kumar, Adv. A. Salini Lal, Adv. Jinu P. Binu
Counsel for the Respondents: Adv. O.M. Shalina DSGI, Adv. Santharam P. Standing Counsel, Mananthavady Municipality, Adv. Noel Jacob, Adv. Raajesh S. Subrahmanian, Adv. M.S. Amal Dharsan, Adv. Dr. Thushara James, Adv. Tony Augustine Government Pleader
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
