Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1608 (KER)

Nehala N. S. v. State of Kerala

2025-06-09

N.NAGARESH

body2025
JUDGMENT : N.NAGARESH, J. The petitioner, who is desirous of establishing a fuel retail outlet in a property measuring 12.15 Ares in Survey No.174/3-6 of Arakkappady Village, Kunnathunadu Taluk, is before this Court seeking to quash Ext.P2 and to direct the 2 nd respondent-RDO/Additional District Magistrate to reconsider and allow the application to issue NOC for starting fuel retail outlet. 2. The petitioner states that in response to the petitioner's application, the Indian Oil Corporation Limited has issued Ext.P1 Letter of Intent dated 07.03.2024. The petitioner's property where the fuel outlet is proposed is situated on the western side of Chithrapuzha – Ponjassery PWD Road. There are two other petrol pumps on the road within one kilometre radius. The petitioner submitted application to the 3 rd respondent-District Collector for grant of NOC. The 2 nd respondent called for reports from respondents 4 to 6. All of them recommended to sanction NOC to the petitioner. However, the 2 nd respondent rejected the application as per Ext.P2 order dated 13.02.2025. 3. Ext.P2 stated that Ponjassery –Kizhakkambalam Road, which runs in front of the property, slopes downward from both directions towards the proposed site and numerous heavy vehicles are traversing this route and there is only a possibility of barely passing two large vehicles at the front of the property. The neighbouring residents have strongly raised objections against starting of the fuel outlet. 4. The petitioner states that the Additional District Magistrate has no authority to reject NOC on flimsy grounds. The Ponjassery – Kizhakkambalam Road is having 7.50 metre width. The 2 nd respondent has already granted NOC for two other fuel outlets on the very same road within one kilometre radius. Ext.P5 lay out plan would show that the proposed land is on the side of a straight portion of the road. Ext.P2 is therefore illegal and arbitrary. 5. The Government Pleader entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that the Ponjassery – Kizhakkambalam road which runs in front of the petitioner's property slopes down from both directions towards the proposed sites and numerous heavy vehicles are traversing this route. Barely two large vehicles can pass through the road in front of the property. The neighbouring residents have submitted a mass petition expressing their objections regrading starting of the petroleum retail outlet. A hearing was conducted in the matter on 05.11.2024. Barely two large vehicles can pass through the road in front of the property. The neighbouring residents have submitted a mass petition expressing their objections regrading starting of the petroleum retail outlet. A hearing was conducted in the matter on 05.11.2024. And thereafter, the application was rejected. There is nothing illegal in Ext.P2, urged the Government pleader. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents. 7. The petitioner is an unemployed educated lady. The petitioner wants to start a petroleum retail outlet in 12.15 Ares of property possessed by the petitioner. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited has issued Letter of Intent in favour of the petitioner. 8. The petitioner's application for NOC from the revenue authorities stands rejected as per Ext.P2. Ext.P2 states that the Ponjassery – Kizhakkambalam Road slopes downward from both directions towards the proposed site. Numerous heavy vehicles are traversing this route. Only two large vehicles can pass through the road in front of the property. Local residents have raised objections. 9. The petitioner has made available photographs of the portion of the road where the retail outlet is proposed. I do not find any significant slopes downwards which would make the place unsuitable for establishing a retail fuel outlet. Respondents 2 and 3 would urge that numerous heavy vehicles are traversing in this route. Traffic of heavy vehicles by itself cannot be a reason to decline permission to start a retail fuel outlet. 10. Ext.P2 would show that the further reason for rejection of NOC is that there is only a possibility of barely passing two large vehicles at the front of the property. The photographs made available would show that the road has more or less uniform width in this area. Two other retail fuel outlets have already been established on the very same road, within a radius of one kilometre. Therefore, rejection of the application for NOC on the ground that barely two heavy vehicles can traverse the road, cannot be sustained. 11. When establishments like retail fuel outlets are proposed, there will be anxiety and concern among the local residents. However, objections from local residents cannot be a reason to decline NOC to start retail fuel outlet. Therefore, rejection of the application for NOC on the ground that barely two heavy vehicles can traverse the road, cannot be sustained. 11. When establishments like retail fuel outlets are proposed, there will be anxiety and concern among the local residents. However, objections from local residents cannot be a reason to decline NOC to start retail fuel outlet. The petitioner will have to obtain more licences, clearances, permits before starting the retail fuel outlet from various statutory authorities including those who are concerned with pollution aspects. The proposal cannot be nixed at a budding stage by denying NOC based on objections from local residents. 12. Ext.P2 is therefore set aside. The 2 nd respondent/Additional District Magistrate is directed to reconsider the application for NOC and pass orders afresh taking note of the observations made hereinabove. Fresh orders shall be passed in this regard within a period of six weeks. The writ petition is disposed of as above.