High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-08-23Disposed of; no further orders. Consent revocat...

Paul Jimmy v. Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and others

Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C) No.22655 of 2021

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: N. Nagareesh
Judgment Date: 2023-08-23
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is disposed of; the Consent Revocation Order dated 21.06.2021 (Ext. P13) will have no effect on the petitioner’s RO. The Pollution Control Board is directed to ensure that the petitioner’s RO functions in line with the CPCB guidelines dated 07.01.2020, and that the relevant circulars are scrupulously followed. The CPCB shall ensure compliance with VRS-installation directives for applicable outlets per its 04.06.2021 circular and related directions. No further orders are necessary.
Final Disposition: Disposed of; no further orders. Consent revocation order has no effect; PCB to ensure adherence to CPCB guidelines and VRS requirements where applicable.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Paul Jimmy

Respondents

Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
The Territory Manager (Retail), BPCL
The Kerala State Pollution Control Board
The Environmental Engineer, Kerala State Pollution Control Board, Ernakulam- II

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K. Jaju Babu (Sr.)
• M. U. Vijayalakshmi
• Brijesh Mohan
• Asadu Ahmed
• Chullinte

Case Synopsis & Summary

Paul Jimmy, the petitioner, approached the Kerala High Court seeking to quash Exts.P11 (Consent Revocation Intention) and P24 (Consent Revocation) and to hold that Exts.P14 to P17 circulars are not applicable to the starting of the petitioner’s Petroleum Retail Outlet (RO) sanctioned by Exts.P1 to P8. The factual matrix shows that the petitioner obtained a Consent to Establish from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB); a complaint by the 5th respondent led to withdrawal of consent and issuance of Ext.P11 and Ext.P24. The petitioner argues that the Apex Court’s decision in Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. V.B.R. Menon and others (Civil Appeal Nos. 494 of 2022 and connected cases; 2023(7) SCC 368) held that a CTE/CTO is not mandatory for petroleum retail outlets and that CPCB guidelines should govern. The Supreme Court directions outlined that CPCB must ensure VRS installation for large outlets and compliance with its Office Memorandum dated 07.01.2020, displacing NGT directives. The Kerala High Court ultimately held that the consent revocation order has no effect and disposed of the writ petition, while directing the SPCBs to ensure adherence to CPCB guidelines. No further orders were necessary. The decision reconciles a modern Supreme Court view with existing regulatory schemes, and directs enforcement through CPCB guidelines rather than mandatory CTE/CTO obligations for new RO establishments.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that Exts.P11 and P24 are void or not legally sustainable; They seeking to quash the revocation of consent and to hold Exts.P14 to P17 as not applicable to initiating a retail outlet under Exts.P1 to P8. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. V.B.R. Menon, the petitioner asserts that a Consent to Establish/Operate is not a mandatory prerequisite for RO operations, and that CPCB guidelines should govern. The petition also challenges the revocation process as contrary to the current regulatory framework; the relief sought includes restoration of consent and a moratorium on enforcement of Ext.P13/P24 until the Apex Court’s decision is applied to local circumstances.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents defend the validity of the consent revocation process, arguing that the pollution-control framework and complaints justify withdrawal of consent. They rely on applicable CPCB/NGT guidelines and the regulations that govern ROs, contending that revocation orders were issued in accordance with law and should be upheld until compliance with the CPCB guidelines is demonstrated. They emphasize the need to adhere to the directions currently in force and to ensure safety and environmental norms are enforced for existing and future RO outlets.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. V.B.R. Menon and others	Civil Appeal Nos. 494 of 2022 and connected cases; 2023(7) SCC 368	Positive	Cited to support that CTE/CTO is not mandatory for Petroleum Retail Outlets and that CPCB guidelines should govern. The judgment aligns with the Supreme Court’s directions in these appeals.
WPC 2331/2019, Bombay High Court	W.P. No. 2331/2019	Mentioned Only	Referenced as Exhibit P19; used to illustrate related judicial consideration in Bombay High Court; not a binding precedent in the Kerala High Court’s ruling.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

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 Paul Jimmy v. Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and others 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** **WEDNESDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 1ST BHADRA, 1945** ## **WP(C) NO. 22655 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER:** **PAUL JIMMY, AGED 24 YEARS, THOTTUPURAM HOUSE, THEKKUMBHAGOM P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI 685 585.** **BY ADVS. K.JAJU BABU (SR.) M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI BRIJESH MOHAN ASADU AHMMED CHULLINTE** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. BHARAT BHAVAN 4 & 6 CURRIMBHOY ROAD, BALLARD ESTATE MUMBAI 400001, REPRESENTED BY ITS TERRITORY MANAGER (RETAIL) ERNAKULAM RETAIL TERRITORY OFFICE, IRIMANAM INSTALLATION, SEA FORT AIRPORT ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 682 309.** - **2 THE TERRITORY MANAGER (RETAIL), BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD, ERNAKULAM RETAIL TERRITORY OFFICE, IRIMPANAM, INSTALLATION, SEA PORT AIRPORT ROAD, ERNAKULAM 682 309.** - **3 THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.** - **4 THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE (ERNAKULAM -II), PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM 683 542.** 2 ## **W.P.(C) No.22655 of 2021** **5 SRI. LEO PAUL, NELLIPPILLIL HOUSE, ADOOPARAMBU, MUVATTUPUZHA P.O., ERNAKULAM - 686 661.** **BY ADVS. T.NAVEEN, STANDING COUNSEL M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR K.M.ANEESH K.JOHN MATHAI JOSON MANAVALAN KURYAN THOMAS PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM RAJA KANNAN K.SANTHOSH KUMAR (KALIYANAM) ADARSH KUMAR BIJU VARGHESE ABRAHAM DILEEP CHANDRAN SHASHANK DEVAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **W.P.(C) No.22655 of 2021** 3 ## **J U D G M E N T** Dated this the 23[rd] day of August, 2023 The petitioner approached this Court seeking to quash Exts.P11 and P24 and to declare that Exts.P14 to P17 Circulars are not applicable as far as starting of the Petroleum Outlet of the petitioner sanctioned as per Exts.P1 to P8 is concerned. 2. The petitioner proposes to start a Retail Petroleum Outlet. A Consent to Establish was issued to the petitioner as per Ext.P8, by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. Later, based on a complaint preferred by the 5[th] respondent, the Consent was withdrawn as per Ext.P13. Ext.P11 is the Consent Revoke Intention notice. By Ext.P24, the Environment Engineer affirmed that the Consent Revoke Order issued as per Ext.P13 is still in **W.P.(C) No.22655 of 2021** 4 existence. The petitioner challenges Exts.P11 and P24. 3. When this matter is taken up today, it is submitted at the Bar that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.494 of 2022 and connected cases ( **Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. V.B.R. Menon and others** [2023(7) SCC 368]) has held that a Consent to Establish or a Consent to Operate is not necessary for a Petroleum Retail Outlets. The Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows: “46. What is important for us to note is that in the directions/guidelines issued by the CPCB dated 30.04.2020 and 07.03.2016 resply 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 the CPCB issued the said directions. The NGT itself in para 66 of its impugned order has noted that the oil industry is characterized as “green category” and the CTE and CTO was not required. It appears to us that the apprehension on the part of the NGT that the installation of VRS may not be strictly monitored by the State Pollution Control Boards, led the NGT to issue directions to the CPCB & 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. We would like to impress upon **W.P.(C) No.22655 of 2021** 5 the 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 a 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.” ## 4. Thereafter, the Apex Court gave the following directions:- “48. In view of the aforesaid, we dispose of the Civil Appeal No. 2039 of 2022 in the following terms:- (a) The CPCB shall ensure that all the retail petroleum outlets located in different cities having population of more than 10 lakh and having turn over of more than 300 KL/Month shall install the VRS mechanism within the fresh timeline as prescribed in its Circular dated 04.06.2021. To put it in other words, the CPCB shall ensure that the directions issued by the NGT as contained in para 69(i) and (ii) of the impugned order is fully complied with. It shall be the legal obligation of all the State Pollution Control Boards to ensure that the directions issued by the NGT in regard to the installation of the VRS mechanism is complied with within the fresh timeline as prescribed by the CPCB. (b) We set aside the directions issued by the NGT in the impugned order as contained in para 69(iii) and (iv). Instead, we direct the CPCB to instruct all the State Pollution Control Boards to ensure that the guidelines issued by it vide the **W.P.(C) No.22655 of 2021** 6 Office Memorandum dated 07.01.2020 are strictly adhered to. If there is breach of any of the guidelines issued by the CPCB vide Office Memorandum dated 07.01.2020, then the concerned State Pollution Control Board shall proceed against the erring outlet in accordance with law at the earliest.” 5. Going through the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is evident that a Consent to Establish or Consent Operate is not necessary in the case of a Retail Petroleum Outlets. Therefore, the Consent Revocation Order passed by the Pollution Control Board will have no effect. At the same time, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the Pollution Control Board shall ensure that the Petroleum Retail Outlets are functioning in tune with the Guidelines issued in the Office Memorandum dated 07.01.2020 and it should be ensured that the Petroleum Retail Outlets strictly adhere to the provisions contained therein. 6. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court, no further orders are necessary in the writ petition. It is made clear that Consent Revocation Order issued on the petitioner will have no 7 **W.P.(C) No.22655 of 2021** effect. At the same time, the Pollution Control Board will be at liberty to ensure that the petitioner's Petroleum Retail Outlet is functioning adhering to the Guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- **N. NAGARESH JUDGE** ams **W.P.(C) No.22655 of 2021** 8 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22655/2021** **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **Exhibit P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 25.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT INVITING APPLICATIONS FOR SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT OF RETAIL DEALER BETWEEN MUVATTUPUZHA AND ADOOPARAMBU.** **Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RETAIL OUTLET DEALERSHIP SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 21.12.2018.** **Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 01.12.2018 OF THE LAND OWNER AGREEING TO GIVE THE LAND ON LEASE.** - **Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF INTENT DATED 24.03.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** - **Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL DATED 0- 1.06.2020 FORWARDED BY THE PETROLEUM AND EXPLOSIVES SAFETY ORGANISATION (PESO), TO THE CORPORATION** - **Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOC VIDE NO. DI2719/2020 DATED 09.06.2020 ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL FIRE OFFICER, FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES, ERNAKULAM.** - **Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE VIDE NO. 56/2020 DATED 5.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE , ERNAKULAM.** - **Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO ESTABLISH THE OUTLET ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER ON 19.06.2020.** - **Exhibit P9** **TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 12.01.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH** 9 ## **W.P.(C) No.22655 of 2021** ## **RESPONDENT BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PERUMBAVUR.** **Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 22.03.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PERUMBAVUR.** **Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT REVOKE INTENTION NOTICE DATED 08.04.2021 FORWARDED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** **Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO EXT. P11 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 217.4.2021 BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** **Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT REVOKE ORDER DATED 21.06.2021 GRANTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR VIDE NO.PCB/HO/HOW/RULES9/7/2019 DATED 24.2.2020 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDED CIRCULAR VIDE NO./PCB/HO/HOW/RULES 9/7/2019 DATED 18.08.2020 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE CLARIFICATION/CIRCULAR VIDE NO. PCB/HO/HOW/RULES9/7/2019 DATED 04.02.2201 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE MODIFIED CIRCULAR VIDE NO. PCB/HO/HOW/RULES9/7/2019 DATED 21.4.2021 PUBLISHED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.1.2021 IN I.A. NO. 1/2020 IN O.S. 40.406/2020 PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA. Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF THE ORAL JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 2331/2019 DATED 15.01.2201 OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY.** 10 ## **W.P.(C) No.22655 of 2021** **Exhibit P20** **TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT (WITHOUT EXHIBIT IN WPC NO. 16756/2021 FIELD BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 6.9.2021.** **Exhibit P21** **TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 17.9.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER TO THE MEMBER SECRETARY OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **Exhibit P22 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 9.9.2021 IN WPC N 16756 OF 2021 OF THIS HONBLE COURT.** **Exhibit P23 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. PCB/EKM/DO2/GEN-CF/05/13 DATED 28.9.2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** **Exhibit P24 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. PCB/EKM/DO2/GEN-CF/05/13 DATED 7.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** **Exhibit P25** - **TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. B- 13011/12019-20/AQM/0809 DATED 7.1.2020 ISSUED BY ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, AQM DIVISION OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **Exhibit P26 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 86/2019 DATED 18.01.2019 ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI.** - **Exhibit P27 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.7.2019 IN O.A. NO. 86/2019 OF THE NATIONAL GREE TRIBUNAL.** - **Exhibit P28 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 4.5.2021 IN WPC NO. 8456/2201 OF THIS HONBLE COURT.** **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT** 11 ## **W.P.(C) No.22655 of 2021** **Exhibit R5** **A TRUE COPY OF THE SITE PLAN PERTAINING TO THE PROPOSED SUBJECT MATTER OUTLET SUBMITTED BY THE WRIT PETITOINER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES, OBTAINED BY MEANS OF RTI APPLICATION BEFORE THE VILLAGE OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA.**