High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petitions disposed of; directions to consi...
Girish Kumar v State of Kerala; Abdul Kareem v State of Kerala; Ramesh P.R. v State of Kerala
Case / Petition Number:WP(C) Nos. 3309/2022; 3317/2022; 3346/2022
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- N. Nagareesh
- Judgment Date
- 2022-02-07
- Court Decision / Holding
- There will be a direction to the 4th respondent to consider the applications for grant of NOC to the petitioners' proposed Fuel Stations in terms of paragraph 54 of the judgment in Thommachan Jacob (Supra). Orders shall be passed within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petitions are disposed of as above.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petitions disposed of; directions to consider NOC applications in terms of Paragraph 54 of Thommachan Jacob; orders to be issued within one month.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Girish Kumar
- Abdul Kareem
- Ramesh P.R.
Respondents
- The State of Kerala
- KERALA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
- THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, MALAPPURAM-676121
- THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM DIST., MALAPPURAM-676121
- THE NAYARA ENERGY LTD.
- INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • R. Sunil Kumar
- • A. Salini Lal
- • Arun Krishna
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri K. Dilip
- • Sri Appu P.S.
- • Sri M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar
Case Synopsis & Summary
The trio of writ petitions (WP(C) Nos. 3309/2022, 3317/2022, 3346/2022) before the Kerala High Court, Ernakulam, challenge the grant of No Objection Certificates (NOC) for proposed Petroleum Outlets without strict adherence to normative norms and Government Orders. The petitioners contend that NOC should be issued without demanding compliance with IRC norms (IRC-122016) and Exts. P4/P5, arguing that the NOC from District authorities should suffice and that rigid compliance causes unnecessary delays. The court situates the matter within a batch of similar petitions in which it previously issued pronouncements in Thommachan Jacob v. State of Kerala, quashing Exts. P4 and P5 and directing authorities to ignore certain guidelines in favor of the procedural Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, and to evaluate NOC applications per prevailing rules as on the dates of the applications. The judgment acknowledges those precedents and ultimately orders that the 4th respondent re-consider the NOC applications consistent with paragraph 54 of Thommachan Jacob, with orders to be issued within one month. The writ petitions are therefore disposed of with directions to proceed in accordance with Thommachan Jacob’s guidance, while allowing petitioners to cure defects in their applications where necessary.
Provisions of Law Cited
Petroleum Rules, 2002, Rule 144IRC-122016G.O.(Ms) No. 46/2019/PWD (22-10-2019)G.O.(Ms) No. 16/2020/PWD (10-2-2020)G.O.(Ms) No. 67/2020/PWD (16-10-2020)
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners submitted that NOC ought to be issued for their proposed Fuel Stations without strict adherence to IRC norms (IRC-122016) and GO norms (Exts. P4 and P5), contending that a separate NOC from PWD should not be a mandatory precondition. They relied on the Thommachan Jacob precedent to invalidate the linking conditions and to permit NOC consideration under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, according to the rules in force at the time of their applications.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents argued for compliance with established norms and government orders (Exts. P2, P4; GO(MS) Nos. 46/2019, 16/2020, 67/2020). They contended that NOC from PWD and adherence to safety and road-use guidelines are essential, and that the petitioners’ requests cannot override statutory norms and policy decisions without appropriate reassessment.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Thommachan Jacob v. State of Kerala | 2021 (4) KLT 756 | Positive | The court relies on Thommachan Jacob for quashing Exts. P2 and P4 and for directing district authorities to reconsider NOC applications under Rule 144, consistent with Paragraph 54 of that judgment. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Girish Kumar v State of Kerala; Abdul Kareem v State of Kerala; Ramesh P.R. v State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH**
**MONDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 18TH MAGHA, 1943**
**WP(C) NO. 3309 OF 2022**
## **PETITIONER:**
**GIRISH KUMAR, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O VELAYUDHAN NAIR, THADATHIL HOUSE, ILLATHMAD, PERUVALLUR, MALAPPURAM**
**BY ADVS. R.SUNIL KUMAR A.SALINI LAL ARUN KRISHNA**
## **RESPONDENTS:**
**1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2 KERALA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, REP BY THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE TRANSPORT PROJECT, JAGAD BUILDINGS, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003. 3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, BEACH ROAD, MALAPPURAM-676 121 4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM DIST., COLLECTORATE, MALAPPURAM-676 121 5 THE NAYARA ENERGY LTD., TERRITORY SALES MANAGER, 6B 6TH FLOOR, NOEL FOCUS, SEAPORT AIRPORT ROAD, CHITTETHUKARA, CSEZ P.O., KOCHI-682 037**
**R5 BY ADV. SRI.K.DILIP SRI.APPU P.S., GOVERNMENT PLEADER**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.02.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).3317/2022, 3346/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**WP(C)Nos.3309,3317,3346/2022**
**2**
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH**
**MONDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 18TH MAGHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 3317 OF 2022**
## **PETITIONER:**
**ABDUL KAREEM, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. USMAN HAJEE, KURUKKAN HOUSE, PUTHANANGADI, VALIYORA P.O, VENGARA, MALAPPURAM BY ADVS. R.SUNIL KUMAR A.SALINI LAL ARUN KRISHNA**
## **RESPONDENTS:**
|**1**|**THE STATE OF KERALA,**|
|---|---|
||**REPRESENTED BY THE ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY,**|
||**KERALA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,**|
||**GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,**|
||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001**|
|**2**|**KERALA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,**|
||**REPRESENTED BY THE PROJECT DIRECTOR,**|
||**KERALA STATE TRANSPORT PROJECT, JAGAD BUILDINGS,**|
||**KOWDIAR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003.**|
|**3**|**THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,**|
||**PWD ROADS DIVISION,**|
||**BEACH ROAD, MALAPPURAM-676121**|
|**4**|**THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,**|
||**MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,**|
||**COLLECTORATE, MALAPPURAM-676 121**|
**WP(C)Nos.3309,3317,3346/2022**
**3**
**5 THE NAYARA ENERGY LTD., TERRITORY SALES MANAGER, 6B, 6TH FLOOR, NOEL FOCUS, SEAPORT AIRPORT ROAD, CHITTETHUKARA, CSEZ P.O, KOCHI 682 037**
**R5 BY ADV K.DILIP SRI.APPU P.S., GOVERNMENT PLEADER**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.02.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).3309/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**WP(C)Nos.3309,3317,3346/2022**
**4**
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH**
**MONDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 18TH MAGHA, 1943**
**WP(C) NO. 3346 OF 2022**
## **PETITIONER:**
**RAMESH P.R., AGED 42 YEARS, S/O RAMANCHANDRAN, POOLODE HOUSE, PUDUPPADI, KOZHIKODE.**
**BY ADVS. R.SUNIL KUMAR A.SALINI LAL ARUN KRISHNA**
## **RESPONDENTS:**
|**1**|**STATE OF KERALA,**|
|---|---|
||**REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,**|
||**KERALA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,**|
||**GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,**|
||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.**|
|**2**|**KERALA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,**|
||**REPRESENTED BY THE PROJECT DIRECTOR,**|
||**KERALA STATE TRANSPORT PROJECT,**|
||**JAGAD BUILDINGS, KOWDIAR P.O.,**|
||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003.**|
|**3**|**THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,**|
||**PWD ROADS DIVISION,**|
||**KOZHIKODE-673002.**|
|**4**|**THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,**|
||**KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,**|
||**COLLECTORATE, KOZHIKODE-673020.**|
**WP(C)Nos.3309,3317,3346/2022**
**5**
**5 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER, TRIVANDRUM DIVISIONAL OFFICE, GROUND FLOOR, PREMIER PARK, INCHAKKAL BYE PASS ROAD, VALLAKKADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.**
**SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC FOR IOC SRI.APPU P.S., GOVERNMENT PLEADER**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.02.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).3309/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**WP(C)Nos.3309,3317,3346/2022**
**6**
## **JUDGMENT**
## **Dated this the 7[th] day of February, 2022**
**[WP(C)Nos.3309,3317,3346/2022]**
Petitioners seek to direct the 4[th] respondent to issue No Objection Certificate for their proposed Petroleum Outlets without insisting to comply with the norms in IRC-122016 and Exts.P4 and P5 Government Orders.
2. The petitioners state that the NOC is not being issued by the 4[th] respondent for the reason that the Fuel Outlets of the petitioners do not satisfy the IRC/MoRTH norms and the provisions contained in the relevant Government Orders issued by the 1[st] respondent.
3. When these cases were taken up today, learned counsel on either side pointed out that in a batch of writ petitions involving the very same issue, this Court has
**WP(C)Nos.3309,3317,3346/2022**
**7**
passed judgment in _**Thommachan Jacob v. State of Kerala** [2021 (4) KLT 756]_ , wherein this Court quashed Exts.P4 and P5 Government Orders dated 10.02.2020 and 16.10.2020 and declared that insisting on a condition to produce NOC from PWD while granting NOC by the District authorities is null and void. The directions of this Court are contained in Paragraph 54 of the judgment which are reproduced below:-
“54. In view of the findings and conclusions made hereinabove, this Court find it unnecessary to decide other issues agitated in these writ petitions. The writ petitions filed by Oil Marketing Companies and their Franchisees are therefore allowed with the following orders/directions:
(i) Ext.P2 and P4 Government Orders and the Guidelines for Access Permission to Fuel Stations along State Highways (SH) and Major District Roads (MDR) approved as per Ext.P4 are set aside;
(ii) Orders of the District Authorities rejecting the applications for NOC under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 submitted by the petitioners/the respective Oil Marketing Companies for non-compliance of Ext.P2 or P4 Guidelines, are set aside.
(iii) In those writ petitions where District Authorities have granted NOC subject to the condition of producing NOC from PWD, the said condition is declared as null and void.
(iv) The District Authorities concerned are directed to consider / re-consider the applications submitted by the petitioners for NOC under Rule
**WP(C)Nos.3309,3317,3346/2022**
**8**
144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 without regard to Exts.P2 and P4 and in accordance with the Rules prevailing as on the dates of the applications, within a period of two months.
(v) The petitioners will be at liberty to cure any other defects in their applications or pointed out in the orders of rejection of their applications, in the meanwhile.
(vi) WP(C) Nos.15228/2020, 12396/2020, 9008/2020, 8075/2020, 4614/2020, 4607/2020, 3549/2020, 35334/2019, 35036/2019, 33640/2019, 29361/2019 and 68/2021 which are filed challenging grant of NOC ignoring Exts.P2 and P4 Government Orders are dismissed.”
4. Exhibits P2 and P4 referred to in the judgment in _**Thommachan Jacob**_ (Supra) are Exts.P4 and P5 Government Orders dated 10.02.2020 and 16.10.2020 in these cases. Hence, these writ petitions also can be disposed of in the light of the findings and conclusions contained in paragraph 54 of the judgment in _**Thommachan Jacob**_ (Supra).
5. In the facts and circumstances, there will be a direction to the 4[th] respondent to consider the applications for grant of NOC to the petitioners' proposed Fuel Stations in terms of paragraph 54 of the judgment in _**Thommachan**_
**WP(C)Nos.3309,3317,3346/2022**
**9**
_**Jacob**_ (Supra). Orders shall be passed within one month
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petitions are disposed of as above.
Sd/- **N. NAGARESH JUDGE**
SR
**WP(C)Nos.3309,3317,3346/2022**
**10**
## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3309/2022**
## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:**
|**Exhibit P1**|**COPY OF THE OFFER LETTER ISSUED BY THE**|
|---|---|
||**5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED**|
||**25.3.2021**|
|**Exhibit P2**|**COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE**|
||**5TH RESPONDENT FOR GETTING NOC TO THE**|
||**OUT LET AWARDED TO THE PETITIONER**|
||**DATED 25.3.2021**|
|**Exhibit P3**|**COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO 46/2019/PWD**|
||**DATED 22.10.19**|
|**Exhibit P4**|**COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO 16/2020/PWD**|
||**DATED 10.2.20**|
|**Exhibit P5**|**COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE**|
||**GO(MS) NO 67/2020/PWD DATED 16.10.2020**|
|**Exhibit P6**|**COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF WPC NO**|
||**23122/2021 DATED 26.10.21**|
**WP(C)Nos.3309,3317,3346/2022**
**11**
## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3317/2022**
## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:**
**Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE OFFER LETTER ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 4-08-2021 Exhibit P2 COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT FOR GETTING NOC TO THE OUT LET AWARDED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 4-08-2021 Exhibit P3 COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO.46/2019/PWD DATED 22-10-2019 Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO. 16/2020/PWD DATED 10-2-2020 Exhibit P5 COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF G.O(MS) NO. 67/2020/PWD DATED 16-10-2020 Exhibit P6 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF W.P9C) NO. 23122/2021**
**WP(C)Nos.3309,3317,3346/2022**
**12**
## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3346/2022**
## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:**
**Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE OFFER LETTER ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 14.08.2020. Exhibit P2 COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT FOR GETTING NOC TO THE OUT LET AWARDED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 20.10.2020. Exhibit P3 COPY OF THE G O (MS) NO.46/2019/PWD DATED 22.10.2019. Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE G O (MS) NO.16/2020/PWD DATED 10.02.20. Exhibit P5 COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF G O (MS) NO.67/2020/PWD DATED 16.10.2020. Exhibit P6 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF WPC NO.23122/2021.**
**//TRUE COPY//**
**SR**
**PA TO JUDGE**