WP(C) 9881/2020 & connected cases The Kerala High Court, in a consolidated batch of writ petitions (WP(C) 9881/2020 and connected matters), examines challenges to Ext.P2/go No.46/2019 and Ext.P4/go No.16/2020–the guidelines for access permissions to Petroleum Retail Outlets (fuel stations) along State Highways/Major District Roads. The petitions contend that these extant Government Orders and guidelines, framed without proper legislative backing and in disregard of central statutes, strike at the applicants’ fundamental rights and commercial interests by imposing stringent distance, plot-size, fees, and other access conditions. The court surveys Petroleum Act 1934, Petroleum Rules 2002 (Rule 144 with sub-rule (7)), Kerala Highway Protection Act 1999 (sections on declaration of highways, building access permissions, and rule-making powers), and the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act 2002 (Sections 28, 29, 14), as well as Article 162 of the Constitution. It also considers precedents (Mary Ulahannan; Reliance Industries; Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu; G. J. Fernandez) to evaluate executive actions vs. statutory mandates. The judgment holds Ext.P2 and Ext.P4 as unsustainable and sets aside district refusals grounded on those guidelines, directing authorities to re-evaluate NOC applications under Rule 144 using existing rules and within two months, allowing cure of defects and dismissing other connected petitions accordingly.
WP(C) 9881/2020 & connected cases This batch of writ petitions, heard together in the Kerala High Court, challenges Government Orders and Guidelines governing access permissions for establishing Petroleum Retail Outlets along State Highways and Major District Roads. The petitioners, led by Oil Marketing Companies and their Franchisees (including Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Nayara Energy Ltd.), contend that Ext.P2 (GO) and Ext.P4 guidelines, which prescribe stringent siting norms, distance requirements from intersections, and hefty processing/licensing fees, intrude upon their fundamental rights and exceed the State’s legislative competence. The petitions argue that petroleum regulation is a Central subject and that the State cannot unilaterally impose distance-based or rate-based conditions through executive guidelines, particularly when MoRTH/IRC norms were withdrawn and later reintroduced. The Government responds by invoking the Kerala Highway Protection Act and Kerala Highway Protection Rules, and argues that executive instructions under Article 162 can supplement missing rules. The court examines the statutory framework (Petroleum Rules, 2002; Petroleum Act, 1934; Highway Protection Act, 1999; Control of National Highways Act, 2002; relevant Articles of the Constitution) and governing guidelines, including IRC 12-2016 and GO Nos. 16/2020, 67/2020, 46/2019, 55/2020, 551/2020, 555/2020. The judgment ultimately allows the petitions in part, sets aside Ext.P2 and Ext.P4, holds that district authorities cannot base NOC refusals on Ext.P4 Guidelines, and directs reconsideration of NOC applications under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 within two months, while leaving other issues open.
WP(C) 9881/2020 & connected cases (and related WP(C) petitions listed in the judgment) This is a consolidated set of writ petitions filed by Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs) and their franchisees challenging the Government of Kerala’s orders and guidelines governing access permissions for starting petroleum retail outlets along state highways and major district roads. The petitions argued that Ext.P2 (Go No. 16/2020) and Ext.P4 (Guidelines for Access Permission to Fuel Stations along SH/MDR) construe intrusive, discriminatory, and ultra vires regulatory measures on a Central subject (petroleum) and violate Article 19(1)(g) by restricting business without appropriate statutory backing. The MoRTH guidelines IRC 12-2016 had been withdrawn by the Central Government, and Kerala responded with new norms via Ext.P2 and Ext.P4, which the petitioners contend lack legislative authority, were framed without meaningful consultation, and affront the central statutes governing petroleum, as well as the Highway protection framework. The Kerala High Court examined central statutes like the Petroleum Act, 1934 and Petroleum Rules, 2002 (especially Rule 144 and its sub-rule 7), along with the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 and the Kerala Highway Protection Act, 1999, to determine the constitutional and procedural validity of the state’s actions. The court ultimately held Ext.P2 and Ext.P4 to be set aside, directing District Authorities to reconsider NOCs under Rule 144 in accordance with prevailing rules, within two months, and dismissing related challenges in several connected petitions. The decision emphasizes that access permissions for fuel stations must be governed by central statutes and the appropriate highway authorities, not by pre-emptive state guidelines.
WP(C) No. 9881 of 2020 and connected cases This consolidated Kerala High Court writ petition judgment addresses whether the state can regulate petroleum retail outlets via executive guidelines. A cluster of petitions by oil marketing companies (HPCL, BPCL, IOCL, Nayara Energy, and various franchisees) challenged Ext.P2 (G.O. No.16/2020) and Ext.P4 (G.O. No.67/2020) along with related orders, arguing that Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, and the central statutes govern access permissions to fuel stations, not unilateral state regulations. The petitioners contended that the state lapsed into creating stringent distance/plot norms and fees without legislative backing, violating Article 19(1)(g), Article 14, and central-provincial constitutional balance. The respondents countered that the District Authorities may consider public safety and traffic implications under the rules and guidelines, and that centralized norms were valid executive instructions under Article 162. The Court holds that Ext.P2 and Ext.P4 and related district refusals cannot be sustained as they stand outside the statutory framework, and that district authorities cannot rely solely on these guidelines to deny NOCs under Rule 144. It sets aside the challenged government orders, directs reconsideration of pending NOC applications within two months under prevailing law, and dismisses certain connected petitions while keeping other issues open.
WP(C) Nos. 26189/2020; 16949/2021; 21139/2021; 23366/2021; 25705/2021 This batch judgment of a single-judge of the Kerala High Court addresses a complex, nationwide recruitment exercise conducted by the Staff Selection Commission in 2018 for Constables (GD) in CAPFs, NIA, SSF and Riflemen (GD) in Assam Rifles, and related posts. The petitions challenge the handling of domicile data in online applications, contested by candidates who submitted domicile information that, due to inadvertent errors, did not match their domicile/nativity certificates. Petitioners contend that such misentries were bona fide and do not affect the overall selection, urging correction of domicile data even after application submission and DME. The SSC and authorities resist, insisting that the notification made domicile details a critical, uniform parameter for state/UT allocations, border districts, and multi-layer reservations; post-submission corrections could undermine India-wide uniformity and the integrity of the selection process. The court reviews a chain of interim directions and a common judgment disposing of related petitions, including the setting aside of 200 vacancies and later directing further RME. Citing Ajay Kumar Mishra and other authorities, the court emphasizes strict compliance with the notification and uniformity across states, while distinguishing some authorities as non-binding precedents for this context. Ultimately, the court disposes of the petitions with partial relief: directing SSC to complete the selection process and publish results within a month, allowing inclusion of unfilled vacancies and certain interim reliefs, and extending the validity of revised medical reports till final list finalization. The judgment also leaves open questions on seniority and non-joining vacancies for subsequent action under law.
WP(C) Nos.9881/2020 & connected cases The Kerala High Court heard a batch of writ petitions filed by Oil Marketing Companies and their franchisees challenging government guidelines Ext.P2 (Go No.16/2020/PWD, 10.02.2020) and Ext.P4 (Go No.67/2020/PWD, 16.10.2020) which prescribed stringent access norms for petroleum retail outlets along State Highways and Major District Roads, including minimum distances from road intersections. The petitions argued that Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 governs No Objection Certificates (NOCs) for establishing petrol stations and that central IRC norms or MoRTH guidelines were either withdrawn or surpassed by Kerala’s executive orders, violating Article 14 and the right to do business. The State contended that Ext.P4 was a lawful exercise of executive power to ensure road safety and traffic management, particularly after amendments to Rule 144 (2018) and the later MoRTH notifications. The judgment analyses the statutory scheme: Petroleum Rules, 2002; Petroleum Act, 1934; Highway protection laws; and the role of Highway Authorities vs. district authorities. It cites Mary Ulahannan, Reliance Industries, Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu, G.J. Fernandez, and the Wednesbury principle to evaluate executive action. Ultimately, the court sets aside Ext.P2 and Ext.P4 (and related directives), holds that district authorities cannot rely on those guidelines to deny NOCs, and directs reconsideration of NOC applications under Rule 144 within two months, with liberty to cure defects and without the Ext.P2/Ext.P4 constraints. The judgment emphasizes natural justice and consultative process in regulatory actions.
WP(C) Nos.9881/2020 & connected cases The batch Writ Petitions (WP(C) 9881/2020 and connected cases) challenge Government Orders Ext.P2 (G.O.(Ms) No.16/2020/PWD, 10.02.2020) and Ext.P4 (G.O.(Ms) No.67/2020/PWD, 16.10.2020) implementing guidelines for access permission to Petroleum Fuel Stations along State Highways and Major District Roads. The petitioners, comprising major oil marketing companies and petitioners seeking NOC for new petrol pumps, contend that the rules/guidelines (a) intrude upon central subject matters under the Petroleum Rules, 2002, (b) constitute executive instructions void for want of consultative process and (c) violate Article 14 and fundamental rights by imposing a distance/minimum plot norm not grounded in statutory authority. The respondents defend Ext.P2 and Ext.P4 as reasonable regulatory measures under Article 162, based on Kerala’s powers relating to roads and safety, and argue that District Authorities can consider traffic/public-safety factors under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 and related statutes. The Court, applying Mary Ulahannan and Reliance Industries lines, holds that District Authorities cannot rely on Ext.P4 Guidelines to deny NOC; guidelines lack statutory footing and invite executive overreach. It directs reconsideration of NOC applications under Rule 144 in light of existing rules as of the application dates, sets aside Ext.P2/P4, and dismisses other challenges, while leaving other questions open.
WP(C) Nos.9881/2020 & connected cases This is a consolidated writ petition judgment of the Kerala High Court (Justice N. Nagareesh) dated 5 August 2021, arising from a batch of petitions filed by Oil Marketing Companies and their franchisees challenging Government Orders Ext.P2 (GO 16/2020) and Ext.P4 (GO 67/2020) and related guidelines for access permissions to petroleum fuel outlets along State Highways and Major District Roads. The petitioners contend that the Central Petroleum Rules, 2002 and the Petroleum Act, 1934 vest the licensing/NO objection certificate (NOC) process in a central/Highway Authority framework, and that Ext.P2/P4 attempts to regulate fuel stations on grounds of road safety and traffic management, effectively impairing free to do business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Kerala government responses emphasize that Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, as amended, and related 2002/2020 guidelines permit district authorities to consider traffic density and public safety, and that the guidelines were intended to ensure road safety and regulate access. The judgment rejects Ext.P2/Ext.P4 as unconstitutional/government guidelines that invade central-field power and, holding these to be executive overreach, directs authorities to reconsider NOC applications under the statutory rules within two months, while setting aside past district refusals based on those guidelines. It also notes the importance of natural justice and cautions against arbitrary state action, while leaving broader questions on the regulatory regime open.
WP(C) Nos.9881/2020 & connected cases The judgment consolidates multiple writ petitions filed by Oil Marketing Companies and their franchisees challenging Goa/Executive orders Ext.P2 (G.O.46/2019/PWD) and Ext.P4 (G.O.67/2020/PWD) and related district-level actions under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, concerning access permissions for setting up petroleum retail outlets along State Highways and Major District Roads. The petitioners contend that petroleum regulation is a Central subject under the Petroleum Act, 1934 and Petroleum Rules, 2002, and that Ext.P2/P4 improperly impose IRC-derived distance/plot norms, impose onerous fees, and were framed without proper consultation, violating Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The State asserts competence under Entry 13 of List II (Roads) and Entries 5 & 66 of List II and 35 & 47 of List III, and argues Ext.P4 aligns with central norms via MoRTH and IRC guidelines, albeit withdrawn by MoRTH and later revived in India. The Court distinguishes certain earlier Kerala precedents (notably Mary Ulahannan) and holds that District Authorities cannot rely on Ext.P4 to reject NOCs under Rule 144; the orders are set aside, and District Authorities are directed to reconsider NOC applications in light of the applicable statutes as on the date of each application, within two months, with liberty to cure defects. The decision underscores that access permissions for highways are statutory and must be governed by Highway Authorities and relevant statutes rather than ad hoc guidelines.
Jana Smparka Samithy, a registered charitable society, has approached the Kerala High Court challenging the construction of permanent structures by hotels and resorts along the banks of the Vembanad Lake at Kumarakom (respondents 9–27). The petitioner contends that these constructions violate the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) notifications and Kerala Municipality Building Rules, and that the Kumarakom Grama Panchayat (respondent 8) violated planning norms by permitting indiscriminate development. The writ petition seeks a declaration that the resort constructions are illegal and liable for demolition, with directions to the central and state authorities to enforce CRZ provisions to protect the ecology and livelihood of local fishermen, and to safeguard life on the Kumarakom backwaters. The respondents counter that (i) the CZMP for Kerala excludes Kumarakom backwaters from CRZ applicability due to the Thaneermukkam bund, (ii) the 500-metre radial norm for CRZ restrictions may not apply to backwaters, and (iii) the constructions were in accordance with law and the relevant Building Rules in force at the time of construction. The court evaluates the CZMP approvals, the CRZ notifications (1991, as amended in 1994 and 2011), and the counter affidavits, ultimately holding that the petition lacks a case for relief and dismissing the writ petition. The decision reflects a balancing of ecological protection with regulatory plan boundaries and the role of central and state agencies in CRZ administration.
WP(C) No. 7726 of 2010; WP(C) No. 22427 of 2013 These are two connected writ petitions filed in the Kerala High Court challenging revenue-recovery actions initiated by the Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board against Gandhiji Tiles and Potteries, a registered society. The petitioner contends that the debt sought to be recovered is time-barred and that the Revenue Recovery Act cannot be invoked to recover it. He relies on State of Kerala v. V.R. Kalliyanikutty to support the assertion that time-barred debts cannot be recovered; he also emphasizes a substantial claim of value in the mortgaged property. The sequence of proceedings includes Exts. P1 (2004 notice), P2 (reply), P3 (notice), P4–P5 (Revenue Recovery notices), and P11 (notice of sale). In Ext.P6, this Court previously allowed raising the limitation issue before the District Collector, directing consideration of limitation in revision. The District Collector and later Land Revenue Commissioner did not address this question in Ext. P8 or Ext. P13, prompting the present challenge. The learned Judge ultimately disposes the petitions by setting aside Ext. P13 in WP22427/2013, directing the 4th respondent to reconsider the matter after hearing, within one month, and keeping the recovery process in abeyance pending fresh orders with deposits to be adjusted as per the final order. The judgment emphasizes adherence to earlier directions and lawful consideration of limitation before any sale or further recovery actions.
WP(C) 9881/2020 & connected cases This is a consolidated writ petition matter challenging Government Orders and Guidelines governing access permission to Petroleum Fuel Stations along State Highways and Major District Roads in Kerala. The petitioners, Oil Marketing Companies and their franchisees, argued Ext.P2 (application for NOC) and Ext.P4 (Guidelines for Access Permission to Fuel Stations) were unconstitutional, ultra vires, and violative of central statutes and constitutional rights. They contended the District Authorities could not enforce distance, plot size, and other IRC-like norms via executive guidelines since petroleum regulation is a central subject; they also argued lack of meaningful consultation and violation of natural justice. The Kerala Government defended Ext.P4 as an executive instruction under Article 162, justified by Section 36 and the Kerala Highway Protection Act, 1999, and argued the Guidelines are ancillary to safety and traffic concerns. The Court examined the statutory framework, including the Petroleum Rules, 2002 (Rule 144 and sub-rule 7), the Petroleum Act, 1934, the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 (Sections 28-29), the Kerala Highway Protection Act, 1999 (Sections 3, 19, 36), and constitutional provisions (Articles 14 and 19(1)(g), and Article 162). It held that District Authorities cannot rely on Ext.P2/P4 to deny NOC; such decisions must be grounded in the Petroleum Rules and central/legislative provisions. The judgment ultimately allowed the petitions, set aside Ext.P2 and Ext.P4, directed reconsideration of NOC applications within two months under Rule 144, and dismissed other related petitions, while leaving other issues open. The decision emphasizes the primacy of central statutory norms and cautions against unilateral state-level regulatory shortcuts in petroleum matters.
WP(C) No. 4527 of 2020 (Leading Case) and connected cases A batch of writ petitions, including WP(C) No. 4527 of 2020 led by Nino Jagadish (a minor) represented by his father, challenge the denial of Bharathar/Paravan community status under the Scheduled Castes/Other Eligible Communities framework in Kerala. The Kerala High Court examines whether individuals who claim to belong to historic Scheduled Castes through Christian conversion or distant lineage can be granted caste or OEC status (Other Eligible Community) for educational and employment concessions. The court reviews documentary evidence, anthropological reports, and Government Orders (notably GO(P) 46/2007/SCSTDD) and traverses the line between long-standing Presidential Orders (1950), amendments (1956), and modern interpretive directives. The bench notes conflicting precedents, including Rajan S. v. State of Kerala (2007) 1 KHC 394, and ultimately adopts a cautious, remedial path. Rather than dismissal on the lines of Rajan, the court directs KIRTADS to conduct a fresh enquiry into whether petitioners are Bharathar Christians, permits submission of additional materials, and orders a contemporaneous status-quo until a final determination by KIRTADS. The judgment signals a procedural pivot: provisional recognition may be revisited by an evidentiary process, with final decisions to be taken expeditiously after KIRTADS’ findings.
RP No. 697/2020; RP No. 680/2020 This judgment arises from two review petitions (RP Nos. 697/2020 and 680/2020) challenging CAT orders in OP(CAT) 289/2016 and 292/2016 that granted the benefit of a higher Grade Pay of Rs. 5400 in PB-3 to specified categories on completion of four years’ regular service in posts carrying GP 4800, or via financial upgradation. The Union of India (and Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre in RP 680/2020) contended that the benefit should extend irrespective of whether the higher GP was earned through normal service or through ACP/MACP upgradation, and irrespective of cadre, so long as the four-year criterion was satisfied by a post carrying GP 4800. The respondents relied on the 2009 OM and the 2012 clarifications issued by the Department of Space to argue that GP 5400 should be granted only after four years of regular service in suitable posts and that the financial up-gradation route could not be treated as a substitute for the four-year rule. The court traces the sequence of decisions culminating in the Karnataka High Court’s finding that the 2012 clarification cannot override the 2009 OM, a finding affirmed by the Supreme Court. It also notes the Ernakulam CAT’s 2019 decision following that line but proceeds to decide the present petitions by applying the consistent policy, rejecting any cadre-based or backward-looking distinctions. Consequently, the review petitions are dismissed.
This Kerala High Court writ appeal stems from a dispute over correcting the name of a candidate’s mother in CBSE examination records. The writ petition challenged Ext. P7 rejection and Ext. P8 notification under CBSE bye-laws which allegedly permit corrections for typographical errors and require birth certificate verification. The single judge had allowed the correction, directing CBSE to issue a fresh Mark Statement cum Certificate reflecting the corrected mother’s name, “Manju Varghese” rather than “Manju.” The CBSE appealed, arguing that name corrections fall within Regulation 69.1 and 69.2, and that the requested change—changing a parent’s name rather than a typographical error—fails the byelaws and should have been routed through gazette notification prior to result. The appellate bench (Division Bench) upheld the writ petitions’ protection of genuine corrections but rejected broad assertions to overrule byelaws. Relying on Subin Mohammed S. and Board of Secondary Education of Assam v. M.D. Zaman, the court held corrections may be ordered when genuine, while emphasizing the limited, rule-bound nature of such power and the need to prevent fraud. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, while directing CBSE to correct entries where genuine birth-certificate based corrections are proven, and imposing costs on petitioners. The decision underscores judicial comity, the discretionary yet principled use of mandamus, and the integrity of CBSE records.
This writ petition challenges the rejection of a delayed birth registration under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and Rule 9 of the Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999. The petitioner, Lizy George, contends she was born on 21 May 1975, supported by her SSLC entry (Ext. P1), marriage certificates (Exts. P2–P3), Aadhaar (Ext. P9), PAN (Ext. P11), and Passport (Ext. P12), which align on 21 May 1975. However, baptismal records from St. Mary’s Malankara Church (Ext. P8) list the birth as 9 May 1975. Despite these, the birth was not registered; an initial grant of delayed registration (Ext. P6) was later cancelled (Ext. P7) after the baptismal date was relied upon. The court emphasizes the Act’s purpose to facilitate registration and cautions against over-prioritizing baptismal entries when public documents consistently indicate a different date. Relying on Jigya Yadav v. CBSE and Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, it holds that public documents enjoy presumptive correctness and school records may outrank baptismal entries for birth-date determination. The petition is allowed: Exts. P7 and P14 are quashed, and the 4th respondent is directed to register the birth showing 21 May 1975, within five days from today.
Mahroof Padannayil, the revision petitioner tenant, challenges the eviction order under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, as affirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The Rent Control Court had directed eviction on the ground of bona fide need to start a mini supermarket by joining four rooms in a line-building, with the petition schedule shop room at the southern end. The tenant contends that there are no arrears in rent and that the landlord’s bona fide need is not genuine, arguing that the premises are not the sole location for the landlord’s own livelihood and that the tenant’s livelihood is not solely dependent on the shop’s business; the Advocate Commissioner’s report reportedly shows other vacant rooms nearby, and the tenant argues that the second proviso to Section 11(3) has not been satisfied. The Appellate Authority upheld the eviction. The revision petition before the Kerala High Court contends illegality or impropriety in the impugned orders under Section 20, challenging re-appreciation of evidence. The High Court, applying established law on bona fide needs and the scope of revision, dismisses the revision but grants a limited three-month window to vacate with conditions, acknowledging COVID-19 related hardships while protecting the landlord’s legitimate interest.
WP(C) 9881/2020 & connected cases This is a consolidated Kerala High Court writ petition judgment delivering a common order on 5 August 2021, addressing the challenge by several oil-ma rket ing companies and their franchisees against government rules and guidelines governing access permissions and siting for petroleum retail outlets along State Highways and Major District Roads. The petitioners challenge Ext P2 (G.O. No.16/2020/PWD) of 10 Feb 2020 and Ext P4 (G.O. No.67/2020/PWD) of 16 Oct 2020 and the related IRC guidelines, which were framed after withdrawal of IRC 12-16 norms by MoRTH. They argue these guidelines amount to an executive regulation of a Central subject (petroleum) and violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(g), besides contravening the Petroleum Rules, 2002 (Rule 144) as amended in 2018, which require District Authorities to grant NOC if there is no objection under the rules. The court undertook a rigorous review of the law: Rule 144(7) and Section 28/29 of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002; Section 19 of the Kerala Highway Protection Act, 1999; and Article 162 of the Constitution. The judgment ultimately sets aside Exts P2 and P4 and directs District Authorities to reconsider NOC applications under Rule 144 without regard to those guidelines, within two months, while noting the statutory oversight of Highway Authorities. It emphasizes natural justice and arbitrariness concerns and leaves other issues open.
This writ petition challenges the notification Ext.P1 dated 11.08.2021 issued by Kannur University, which reconstituted 71 Boards of Studies and constituted a new Board of Studies in Biochemistry & Bioinformatics (UG). The petitioners, two elected members of the Academic Council/Management Studies, contend that the reconstitution violates the Kannur University Act, 1996 and the Kannur University Statutes, particularly Statute IV Chapter XIII and Section 30, as well as the Constitution of the Board of Studies rules which prescribe nomination by the Chancellor and a specified number of members. They rely on earlier judgments (Raju K. Thomas and Joseph) to argue that control over Board composition lies with statutory provisions and that bye-laws/regulations cannot override statutes. Respondents contend that the Syndicate has power under Section 25(16) to appoint members to Boards of Studies, that Ext.P1 is in accordance with statutory provisions, and that there is no illegality in the process. The court canvassed these statutory provisions (Sections 3(1), 25(16), 30, 18, 37, 38 of the Kannur University Act, 1996, and related statutes) and ultimately held that there is no ground for interference; the writ petition was dismissed, upholding the validity of the reconstitution under the Act and statutory framework.
WP(C) No. 9881/2020 & connected cases This batch of writ petitions (WP(C) No. 9881/2020 and connected cases) from Oil Marketing Companies (Hindustan Petroleum, Bharat Petroleum, Indian Oil, Nayara Energy and others) challenges Ext. P2 and Ext. P4 Government Orders/guidelines regarding access permissions for Petroleum Retail Outlets along State Highways and Major District Roads in Kerala. The petitions contend that the Petroleum Rules, 2002 and the Petroleum Act, 1934 govern No Objection Certificate (NOC) decisions under Rule 144, and that the State’s Ext. P2/P4 guidelines—linking NOC to stringent IRC-based distance norms and other traffic-safety standards—overstep statutory authority, infringe Article 19(1)(g) and Article 14, and amount to executive overreach bypassing central rules. The Government argues Ext. P4’s norms are a legitimate safety framework, derived via an Expert Committee and grounded in constitutional executive power; MoRTH’s withdrawal and subsequent re-adoption of IRC-guidelines is cited, along with Kerala statutes (Kerala Highway Protection Act, 1999) and related rules. The Kerala High Court, in a single-judge bench led by Justice N. Nagareesh, holds that District Authorities cannot rely on Ext. P2 and Ext. P4 to deny NOC and that access permissions are statutory acts governed by Rule 144 and central statutes. The court directs the District Authorities to reconsider applications under Rule 144 within two months, set aside Ext. P2/P4-based refusals, and dismiss related challenges elsewhere while leaving other issues open.
