THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY W.P.(MD).Nos.14603, 13637 and 13751 of 2020 and 23.In view thereof, we partly allow the Writ Petitions on the following terms:- (i) The impugned “No Objection Certificate”, bearing reference C.No.M2/23279-2019, dated 15.02.2020 shall stand quashed,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
ORDERS RESERVED ON : 29.09.2023
ORDERS PRONOUNCED ON : 13.10.2023
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.(MD).Nos.14603, 13637 and 13751 of 2020
and 
W.M.P.(MD).Nos.12254, 11346, 11347, 11405, 11408, 12255, 16076 and 12253 of 2020
W.P.(MD).No.14603 of 2020:
Senthil Kumar … Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas,
Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi.
2. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Department of Home,
Fort St.George,
Chennai.
3. The District Collector,
Tiruchirapalli District.
Tiruchirapalli.
4. The Commissioner of Police,
Tiruchirapalli Commissionerate,
Tiruchirapalli.
5. The Joint Chief Controller of Explosives,
South Circle,
A&D Wing, Block 1-8,
2nd Floor, Shastri Bhawan,
26 Haddows Road,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai.
6. The Assistant Controller of Legal Metrology,
Department of Legal Metrology,
Tiruchirapalli Region,
Tiruchirapalli.
7. The District Fire & Rescue Officer,
Fire & Rescue Department,
Tiruchirapalli.
8. The Member Secretary,
Tiruchirapalli Town & Country Planning Authority,
Khajamalai,
Tiruchirapalli.
9. The Central Pollution Control Board,
Rep. By its Additional Director,
Parivesh Bhawan,
East Arjun Nagar,
Shahdara,
Delhi – 110032.
10. M/s.Shell India Markets Pvt. Ltd.,
143, Dr.MGR ROAD,
Perungudi, Chennai. … Respondents
W.P.(MD).No.13637 of 2020:
Arunkumar Rengasamy … Petitioner
Versus
1. The Additional chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
Highways & Minor Ports Department,
Fort St.George, Secretariat,
Chennai.
2. The Divisional Engineer
(Construction & Maintenance),
Highways Department,
Trichy.
3. The Joint Chief Controller of Explosives,
A&D wing, Block 1-8,
Shastri Bhavan,
No.26, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600006.
4. The District Fire Officer,
Tiruchirappalli Division,
Tiruchirappalli – 620001.
5. The Commissioner of Police,
Tiruchirappalli District,
Subramaniapuram, Tiruchirappalli.
6. The Commissioner,
Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation,
Tiruchirappalli.
7. The District Revenue Officer,
Tiruchirappalli District,
Collectorate campus,
Tiruchirappalli – 620001.
8. Member Secretary / Assistant Director,
District Town and Country Planning Authority,
CWC Godown Road,
Kajamalai Road,
Tiruchirappalli – 620 023.
9. M/s. SHELL India Markets Pvt. Ltd.,
Having its registered Office at
2nd Floor, Campus 4A, RMZ Millennia Business Park,
143, Dr.M.G.R. Road, Perungudi,
Chennai – 600 096. … Respondents
W.P.(MD).No.13751 of 2020:
S.Kirubha … Petitioner
Versus
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Trichy City Police Office,
Pudukkottai Main Road,
Subramaniapuram,
Tiruchirappalli – 620 023.
2. The District Revenue Officer,
Tiruchirapalli District,
Collectorate Campus,
Tiruchirappalli – 620 001.
3. The Joint Chief Controller of Explosives,
A and D Wing, Block 1 – 8,
Shastri Bhavan,
No.26, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 006.
4. The Divisional Engineer,
(Construction and Maintenance)
Highways Department,
25/28, Shankar Illam,
Pudukottai Main Road, Subramaniyapuram,
Tiruchirappalli – 620 020.
5. The Commissioner,
Trichy Municipal Corporation,
No.58, Bharathidasan Road,
Tiruchirappalli Cantt,
Tiruchirappalli – 620 001.
6. M/s. Shell India Market Privates Limited,
2nd Floor, Campus – 4A,
RMZ Millenia Business Park Phase – 2,
No.143, Dr. M.G.R. Road, Perungudi,
Chennai – 600 096. … Respondents
PRAYER IN W.P.(MD).No.14603 of 2020 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records relating to the impugned proceedings of the 4th respondent in C.No.:M2/23279/2019 dated 15.02.2020 and the impugned proceedings of the 7th respondent in Na.Ka.No.8854/E1/2019 dated 25.11.2019 and quash the same as illegal and consequently forbear the respondents from permitting establishment of any petroleum pump / retail outlet in Survey No.18/13 and 25/1, Block 10, Ponmalai Zone, Tiruchi West Taluk, Tiruchirapalli.
PRAYER IN W.P.(MD).No.13637 of 2020 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 4th respondent dated 25.11.2019 in Na.Ka.No.8854/,1/2019 and the records of the 5th respondent in C.N:M2/23279/2019 dated 15.02.2020 and quash the same and consquently direct the respondents to restrain the 9th respondent from installing or setting up a fuel station at plot Nos.1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12 and the shop Site in J.K. Nagar, Pirattiyur, Ponmalai Zone, Tiruchirappalli City Survey No.18/13 part (New Survey No.18/7part), Survey No.25/1part & Survey.No.25/1A, [T.S.Nos.18, 19, 20, 21, 27, 28, 29, 30], Ward A.M., Block 10, Tiruchirappalli West Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District.
PRAYER IN W.P.(MD).No.13751 of 2020 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the No Objection Certificate No.M2/23279/2019 dated 15.02.2020 issued by the 1st Respondent in favour of the 6th Respondent and quash the same and consequently to restrain the 6th Respondent from erection, commissioning and operation of the proposed Petroleum Retail Outlet in the DTCP Approved J.K. Nagar residential layout at Survey No.18/13, (Part), & 25/1 (Part), T.S. No.25/1A, Plot Nos.1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12 of Ponmalai Zone, Block No.10 of J.K. Nagar, Pirattiyur, Trichy West Taluk, Tiruchirappalli – 620 009 and in gross violation to the IRC Circular No.12-2009.
In W.P.(MD).No.14603 of 2020
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, Senior Counsel
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
For Respondents : Mr.S.Jeyasingh,
Senior Panel Counsel for Central Govt.
for Mr.M.Linga Durai,
Special Government Pleader, (for R5)
: Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan, (for R8)
: Mrs.Vijayalakshmi Natarajan, (for R9)
In W.P.(MD).No.13637 of 2020
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vinod Sathya Lazar
For Respondents : Mr.M.Linga Durai,
Special Government Pleader,
(for RR-1, 2, 4 and 5)
: Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan, (for R6)
In W.P.(MD).No.13751 of 2020
For Petitioner : Mr.V.B.R.Menon
For Respondents : Mr.M.Linga Durai,
Special Government Pleader,
(for RR-1, 2 and 3)
: Mr.S.Jeyasingh, (for R3)
Senior Panel Counsel for Central Govt.
: Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan, (for R5)
: Mr.V.Prakash, Senior Counsel.
for Mr. Jose John, (for R6)
******
J U D G M E N T
[Judgment of the Court was made by D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.,]
All these Writ Petitions are filed aggrieved by the location of the Petrol Pump retail outlet in S.No.18/13, and S.No.25/1 in Block No.10 Ponmalai Zone, Tiruchy West Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District and as such are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment.
2.The brief facts leading to the filing of the Writ Petitions are that M/s.Shell India Market Private Ltd., an Oil Company, commenced the erection and proposed operation of the petroleum retail outlet in Plot Nos.1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11 & 12 of an approved layout, in the name and style of J.K. Nagar, comprised in S.No.18/13 and S.No.25/1, T.S.No.25/1A of Ponmalai Zone, Block No.10, Priyattiyoor of Tiruchy West Taluk, Tiruchy District.
3.Pursuant to the application made by the said Company, by proceeding bearing No.235 of 2019 in Na.Ka.No.8854/E1/2019, dated 25.11.2019, the District Fire Officer, Tiruchirappalli, issued a No Objection Certificate. Thereafter, by proceedings in C.No.M2/232/79 of 2009, dated 15.02.2020, the Commissioner of Police, Trichy City also issued a No Objection Certificate as per Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules. The petitioners challenging these two “No Objection Certificates”, on the following grounds:-
(i) The site is within the prohibited distance of 300 meters from the intersection of the State Highway in SH 154, and as such is in violation of Indian Road Congress Norms, 2009 prescribed under Clause No.4.5.2.1(a)(i) of the norms;
(ii) The Petrol Pump is located within 50 meters from the residential buildings and therefore, the same is violative of siting norms prescribed by the Central Pollution Control Board vide Office Memorandum bearing No.B-13011/1/2019-20/AQM 10802-10847, dated. 07.01.2020. The said guidelines are held to be mandatory by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in, Indian Oil Corporation Limited -Vs- V.B.R. Menon and others.,1 more specifically relied upon the Paragraphs Nos.50 to 53.2;
(iii) In any event, the situs of the dispensing unit as well as the vent are clearly less than 30 meters from the adjacent residential building as such, the above retail outlet is located completely in violation of the CPCB norms;
(iv) The “No Objection Certificate” issued by the Commissioner of Police merely reproduces the Form prescribed under the Rules and it does not disclose any application of matter whatsoever. As a matter of fact, if the form prescribes “any other matter pertinent to public safety”, the same is also routinely reproduced without adverting actually to the matter concerning public safety or saying that there is none. Therefore, the impugned/No objection certificate is issued in a mechanical manner, without considering any of the objections or relevant criteria and passing a speaking order;
(v) The retail outlet is also partly sited on the residential plots, and without even converting the same into commercial use by making an appropriate application before the Planning Authority and the same cannot be used for the establishment of the outlet.
4.Mr. Ajmal Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.14603 of 2020 would reiterate the above submissions, but, however, he would concede to the position that the IRC guidelines were held to be not mandatory.
5.Mr.V.B.R. Menon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.13751 of 2020, reiterating the aforesaid submissions and taking the Court in detail through the relevant pleadings and papers and by referring to the detailed plan filed by him, would submit that there is no way that the present location can satisfy the CPCB norms. It cannot even satisfy the 30-meter norm. The 30-meter norm is only an exception which is not even considered in the instant case. The learned counsel would point out the orders passed by the Commissioners in other jurisdictions, wherein, they have applied their mind and given categorical findings that the findings regarding various criteria that have to be looked into by them under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules. The learned counsel would submit that in any event, the validity of the “No Objection Certificate” is only for a period of 3 years and now that the period is already over, it is incumbent on the respondents to once again apply afresh for the “No Objection Certificate”.
6.Mr.S.Vinod Sathya Lazar, learned counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioners in W.P.(MD).No.13637 of 2020 would adopt the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel and Mr.V.B.R. Menon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.13751 of 2020.
7.Per Contra, Mr.V.Prakash, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 6th respondent in W.P.(MD).No.13751 of 2020 would contend that only because these Writ Petitions were filed and pending, and interim orders were also granted, further procedures in the establishment of the retail outlet could not be proceeded with and therefore, the petitioners on the one hand cannot block the progress of the establishment of the Petrol pump, and at the same breath pleaded that the No Objection Certificate has expired on account of time.
8.The learned Senior Counsel would submit that this Court has consistently held that the IRC guidelines do not have any statutory force or are not mandatory. In a given case, depending on the nature of the intersection, retail outlet pumps can be located even within a 300 meter distance. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel would rely upon the judgment of this Court, in A.Periyasamy (deceased) and another., Vs. The Deputy Director and Ors.,2 (W.P.Nos.34652 of 2019), more fully rely upon Paragraph No.13 of the said Judgment.
9.The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that after the amendment of Rule 144, it categorically stipulates that the District Authority shall issue “No Objection Certificate”, in the proforma given in the Rules itself. Therefore, when after conducting an enquiry and satisfaction as to the various requirements, certificate is issued in the proforma prescribed under the rules, the same cannot be challenged for want of application of mind.
10.The learned Senior Counsel would rely upon the Judgment of this Court, in Maruthapillai Vs. Commissioner of Police and others., (W.P.Nos.7170 of 2020 etc.,), more specifically relying upon Paragraph No.11 of the Judgment to contend that when after due inquiry, proforma is issued in the format and the same cannot be set aside for want of express reasonings in the Certificate, as what is issued is only a Certificate.
11.As far as the violation of CPCB guidelines is concerned, the learned Senior Counsel would contend that it is not 50 meters in every case it is necessary, but, by installing safety procedures such as vapor absorbing equipment, etc, the authorities can permit the location of the retail outlet, if there is 30 meters distance.
12. The Learned Senior Counsel would submit that far as the District Fire Safety Officer is concerned, his inspection and certificate are from the purview of fire safety. As far as the Commissioner of Police is concerned, his approach is from the angle of overall safety. On a perusal of the CPCB guidelines, it can be seen that it is only for the PESO who look into the issue. He would submit that the matter is now pending only at the no objection level and from now on they have to approach the PESO for license. In view of the vast extent of the site of the location of the petrol pump, if before the PESO, the 6th respondent is able to persuade that it can relocate the vent and filling pump, so as to satisfy the mandatory of 30 meters distance, there is still scope for the 6th respondent to establish the retail outlet.
13.We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the material records of this case.
14.Firstly, as far as the submission regarding the expiry of the “No Objection Certificate” is concerned, it can be seen that the No Objection Certificate is granted on 15.02.2020 and is normally valid for a period of 3 years. In this case, before the 6th respondent to proceed further, the Writ Petitions were filed in the year 2020 itself by an interim order in the connected W.A.(MD).No.1020 of 2020, dated 26.11.2020, the 6th respondent was only permitted to go ahead with the construction, but, was restrained from opening the outlet. In that view of the matter, when the litigations are filed and when an interim order is granted, certainly the period from 16.11.2020 to upto the date, has to be excluded from the said 3 years, and if the same is excluded, it cannot be said that the “No Objection Certificate” has expired.
15.As far as the IRC guidelines are concerned, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the 6th respondent, this Court has already taken a decision that the same is not mandatory. As a matter of fact, the intersections of various roads with the State Highways differ in various ways and means on ground. Therefore, it was held that the guidelines need not be mandatorily followed in all matters. The said position has clearly been reiterated, in A.Periyasamy and Anr., cited supra.
16.As far as the contention regarding the location of the Petrol pump in a residential area is concerned, it can be seen that as per Annexure -XVIII to the Zoning regulations in Paragraph No.xxii Under Rule 33 of the TN Combined Development and Building Rules 2019, the location of a petroleum retail outlet in a residential zone is a permitted activity. Therefore, when on that basis building permits and planning permission have been given and the same does not give rise to any illegality so as to interfere in the matter.
17. As far as the CPCB guidelines are concerned, so as to exempt the retail outlets from the procedures of approaching the concerned Pollution Control Boards to obtain consent for establishment and consent for operation, the guidelines are held to be mandatory by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. It has held that the same has to be strictly adhered to. It is essential to extract Paragraphs Nos. 50 to 53.2 of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Indian Oil Corporation Limited vs. V.B.R.Menon and Ors., cited supra, as follows:-
“ 50. What is important for us to note is that in the directions/guidelines issued by CPCB dated 30-4-2020 and 7-3-2016, respectively, the automobile fuel outlets have been classified as “green” which may be exempted from consent management. The learned Solicitor General submitted that it is only after due consideration and deliberations that CPCB issued the said directions. NGT itself in para 66 of its impugned order [V.B.R. Menon v. State of T.N., 2021 SCC OnLine NGT 3583] has noted that the oil industry is characterised as “green category” and the CTE and CTO was not required. It appears to us that the apprehension on the part of NGT that the installation of VRS may not be strictly monitored by the State Pollution Control Boards, led NGT to issue directions to CPCB and State Pollution Control Boards to issue a circular making it mandatory for obtaining the CTE and CTO as a condition precedent for establishing new petroleum outlets. What has been argued before us and also on the basis of the materials on record, we are convinced that it is not necessary to make obtaining of CTE and CTO mandatory.
51. We would like to impress upon CPCB to ensure that its guidelines referred to above are scrupulously followed and once the guidelines are scrupulously adhered to, no direction to obtain CTE and CTO for starting/operating an RO is warranted. We are at one with the learned counsel appearing for the respective appellants that asking the existing ROs to obtain CTO is something very unreasonable and may lead to various difficulties. Even directing the ROs that may come up in future to obtain the CTE and CTO would be cumbersome and time-consuming and thus we do not find it reasonable.
52. In such circumstances, while holding that the National Green Tribunal has the power to direct CPCB that it should exercise its powers under Section 5 of the 1986 Act for the purpose of protecting the environment, we are inclined to modify the impugned directions issued by NGT, Chennai as contained in paras 69(iii) and 69(iv), respectively, of the impugned order [V.B.R. Menon v. State of T.N., 2021 SCC OnLine NGT 3583] .
53. In view of the aforesaid, we dispose of Civil Appeal No. 2039 of 2022 in the following terms:
53.1.CPCB shall ensure that all the retail petroleum outlets located in different cities having population of more than 10 lakhs and having turnover of more than 300 KL/month shall install the VRS mechanism within the fresh timeline as prescribed in its Circular dated 4-6-2021. To put it in other words, CPCB shall ensure that the directions issued by NGT as contained in paras 69(i) and (ii) of the impugned order [V.B.R. Menon v. State of T.N., 2021 SCC OnLine NGT 3583] are fully complied with. It shall be the legal obligation of all the State Pollution Control Boards to ensure that the directions issued by NGT in regard to the installation of the VRS mechanism are complied with within the fresh timeline as prescribed by CPCB.
53.2. We set aside the directions issued by NGT in the impugned order [V.B.R. Menon v. State of T.N., 2021 SCC OnLine NGT 3583] as contained in paras 69(iii) and (iv). Instead, we direct CPCB to instruct all the State Pollution Control Boards to ensure that the guidelines issued by it vide the Office Memorandum dated 7-1-2020 are strictly adhered to. ….”
18.It is also relevant to extract Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, and the proforma prescribed under the rule, which reads as follows:-
“144. No objection certificate: (1) Where the licensing authority is the Chief Controller or the Controller, as the case may be, an applicant for a new license other than a license in Form III, XI, XVII, XVIII or XIX shall apply to the District Authority with two copies of the site-plan showing the location of the premises proposed to be licensed for a certificate to the effect that the is no objection to the applicant receiving a license for the site proposed ama the District Authority shall, if he sees no objection, grant such certificate 1[in the proforma specified in sub-rule (7),] to the applicant who shall forward it the licensing authority with his application in Form IX.
1.[Note.-The licensing authority shall accept the no objection certificate within a period of three years from the date of its issue for considering grant of licence.]
(2) Every certificate issued by the District Authority under sub-rule (1) shall be accompanied by a copy of the plan of the proposed site duly endorsed by him under his official seal.
(3) The Chief Controller or the Controller, as the case may be, may refer an application not accompanied by certificate granted under sub-rule (1) to the District Authority for his observations.
(4) If the District Authority, either on a reference being made to him or otherwise, intimates, to the Chief Controller or the Controller, as the case may be, that any license which has been applied for should not, in his opinion, be granted, such license shall not be issued without the sanction of the Central Government.
(5) The District Authority shall complete his inquiry for issuing NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE (NOC) under sub-rule (1) and shall complete the action for issue or refusal of the NOC, as the case may be, as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the date of receipt of application by him.
2[(6) Where the location of storage of petroleum is within the notified area of a Port or Airport under the control of the state, or establishment of Indian Space Research Organisation or Department of Atomic Energy, NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE from the District Authority referred to in sub rules (1) to (5) shall not be required:
Provided that consent for establishment of petroleum storage from the competent authority of concerned notified area or head of the establishment, as the case may be, is obtained.]
(7) The district authority shall issue a no objection certificate in the following proforma, namely:
PROFORMA
NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE
(See rule 144)
No…………….
Date…………..
Subject:- No objection certificate
With reference to the application No……….dated……………submitted by…………….and in pursuance of rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, there is no objection for granting licence under the Petroleum Rules, 2002 to Shri/Smt./M/s…….. address……..for storage of petroleum products in their premises at Survey No………/Gat No… /Khasra No…………….. Plot No…… Village…….Taluka/Tehsil……………District… ….State…………as shown in the site plan duly endorsed and enclosed herewith.
(1) The following particulars have been considered while issuing this no objection certificate, that-
(a) possession of the site by the applicant is lawful and authorisation from land owner or lease holder for developing premises under these rules for storage of petroleum products;
(b) interest of public, specially the facilities like schools, hospitals or proximity to places of public assembly and the mitigating measures, if any, is provided;
(c) traffic density and impact on traffic;
(d) conformity of proposal to the local or area development planning;
(e) accessibility of the site to fire tenders in case of emergency and preparedness of fire services for combating the emergencies;
(f) genuineness of purpose.
(g) any other matter pertinent to public safety;
Signature of the district authority issuing no objection certificate with his office seal (in towns having a Commissioner of Police, the Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner of Police and for any other place the District Magistrate)
Note.- The licensing authority shall accept the no objection certificate within a period of three years from the date of its issue for considering grant of licence.]”
19.It can be seen from Paragraph No.1(b) and (g) of the proforma that the Authority has to consider the interest of the public especially, facilities like schools, hospitals, or proximity to the places of public assembly and the mitigating measures, if any, are provided and also any other issue regarding public safety. Therefore, we reject the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 6th respondent that it is not the duty of the District Authority to look into the facts as to the violation of the CPCB guidelines. In our view, both the District Authority as well as the licensing authority, namely PESO, are entitled to and are duty bound to look into the same, in view of the categorical pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, that the CPCB guidelines have to be strictly adhered to.
20.In the instant case, by referring to the measurement of the extent of the lands, in which the Petrol pump is located, the learned Counsel for the 6th respondent submitted that it is still possible to realign the fill points, dispensing points and vent points so that it would be away from the 30 meters of any residence surrounding the pump.
21.Mr.V.B.R.Menon, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would rely upon the ariel view of the site and the map of the location and try to demonstrate that in view of the proposed outlet being surrounded by residential houses on all sites of the Plot, it is impossible to satisfy 30 meters criteria. Pointing out to the same photograph, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 6th respondent would submit that only on one side, the residential buildings are close by and on the other two sides there are roads, and therefore, they may still satisfy the 30 meters criteria by relocating the fill points, dispensing points and vent points and thereafter commence the operation of the pump.
22. The size of the site is 36.05 meters *41.73 meters approximately. The above claim and the counter-claim cannot be decided merely on the basis of rough sketches/plans or photographs. It has to be decided by the authorities by making a field inspection and satisfying themselves that there is a possibility and if there is such a possibility and the fill points, dispense points, and vent etc., can be relocated within the premises of the 6th respondent, in such a manner, so as to satisfy the CPCB guidelines, then it can be permitted to do so.
23.In view thereof, we partly allow the Writ Petitions on the following terms:-
(i) The impugned “No Objection Certificate”, bearing reference C.No.M2/23279-2019, dated 15.02.2020 shall stand quashed, inasmuch as, it did not consider the violation as to the mandatory of CPCB guidelines, more specifically in paragraph (H) (Siting criteria of retail outlets) of the guidelines for setting up new petroleum retail outlets, issued vide Office Memorandum, dated 07.01.2020;
(ii) A joint inspection shall be made by the Commissioner of Police, Trichy City as well as the PESO Authorities in the presence of the 6th respondent as well as the Writ Petitioners or their representatives, to consider as to whether by relocating the fill points, vents and dispensing units in any place, within the proposed premises of the 6th respondent, whether the minimum distance of 30 meters from residences can be satisfied even while satisfying the other mandatory requirements and if so, what are the additional safety measures which have to be imposed on the 6th respondent;
(iii) If upon the inspection, if only the 6th respondent satisfies the 30 meters criteria with additional safety measures as may be agreed by the PESO Authorities, the Commissioner of Police, Trichy shall issue afresh the No Objection Certificate, and thereafter, it will be open for the PESO Authorities to consider the grant of final license in accordance with law.
(iv) The above exercise shall be carried on by the authorities, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(v) However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(S.S.S.R. J.,) (D.B.C. J.,)
13.10.2023
(2/2)
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
klt
To:
1. The Secretary,
Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Principal Secretary,
Department of Home,
Fort St.George, Chennai.
3. The District Collector,
Tiruchirapalli District.
4. The Commissioner of Police,
Tiruchirapalli Commissionerate, Tiruchirapalli.
5. The Joint Chief Controller of Explosives,
South Circle,
A&D Wing, Block 1-8, 2nd Floor, Shastri Bhawan,
26 Haddows Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai.
6. The Assistant Controller of Legal Metrology,
Department of Legal Metrology,
Tiruchirapalli Region, Tiruchirapalli.
7. The District Fire & Rescue Officer,
Fire & Rescue Department, Tiruchirapalli.
8. The Member Secretary,
Tiruchirapalli Town & Country Planning Authority,
Khajamalai, Tiruchirapalli.
9. The Central Pollution Control Board,
Rep. By its Additional Director,
Parivesh Bhawan, East Arjun Nagar,
Shahdara, Delhi – 110032.
10. The Additional chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
Highways & Minor Ports Department,
Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai.
11. The Divisional Engineer
(Construction & Maintenance),
Highways Department, Trichy.
12. The District Fire Officer,
Tiruchirappalli Division,
Tiruchirappalli – 620001.
13. The Commissioner of Police,
Tiruchirappalli District,
Subramaniapuram, Tiruchirappalli.
14. The Commissioner,
Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation,
Tiruchirappalli.
15. The District Revenue Officer,
Tiruchirappalli District,
Collectorate campus, Tiruchirappalli – 620001.
16. The Commissioner of Police,
Trichy City Police Office,
Pudukkottai Main Road,
Subramaniapuram, Tiruchirappalli – 620 023.
17. The Commissioner,
Trichy Municipal Corporation,
No.58, Bharathidasan Road,
Tiruchirappalli Cantt,
Tiruchirappalli – 620 001.
S.S.SUNDAR, J.,
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.,
klt
Pre-Delivery Order in
W.P.(MD).Nos.14603, 13637
and 13751 of 2020
13.10.2023
