JUDGMENT : C.S.DIAS, J. The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P12 letter, and direct the 1 st respondent to issue a No-Objection Certificate (NOC) in favour of the 5 th respondent Corporation, to commission a petroleum retail outlet in the petitioner's property. 2. The petitioner has preferred an application before the 5 th respondent to establish a petroleum retail outlet in their property. The 5 th respondent has forwarded the petitioner's application with a letter of intent to the 1 st respondent for permission under the Petroleum Rules. The 1 st respondent called for reports from the statutory authorities. By Ext.P5 report, the Malayattoor Neeleswaram Grama Panchayath has certified that there are no residential buildings within 50 meters from the proposed retail outlet. Similarly, by Ext.P7 report, the Fire and Rescue Department has issued a NOC. However, the 4 th respondent has submitted Ext.P9 report to the 3 rd respondent stating that there are no schools, hospitals, river, streams, canals, thodu or water sources, but there is a 'nilam' within 50 meters from the proposed outlet with no water source. Consequently, the 2 nd respondent conducted physical inspection of the property and he was satisfied that the petitioner's property is 'purayidam'. Subsequently, the 1 st respondent has sought for a clarification from the 4 th respondent. By Ext.P11 report, the 4 th respondent has stated that the petitioner's property is a 'converted purayidam' as per the Basic Tax Register (BTR) and there is no water source within 50 meters from the retail outlet. Even though the adjacent property is classified as 'nilam' in the BTR, the same is also converted land and there are buildings constructed in the property. After the receipt of all the reports, the 1 st respondent has sent Ext.P12 communication to the petitioner reporting that, as wet land would also fall within the category of nilam and there is a wet land within 50 meters from the proposed outlet, the application for NOC cannot be considered. Ext.P12 letter is issued on a misinterpretation of the Central Pollution Control Board norms. The norms only stipulate that there should not be any water source or wet land within 50 meters from the petroleum retail outlet. Ext.P12 letter is erroneous and is issued without any application of mind. Hence, Ext.P12 letter may be quashed. 3. Ext.P12 letter is issued on a misinterpretation of the Central Pollution Control Board norms. The norms only stipulate that there should not be any water source or wet land within 50 meters from the petroleum retail outlet. Ext.P12 letter is erroneous and is issued without any application of mind. Hence, Ext.P12 letter may be quashed. 3. The 2 nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations in the writ petition. He has contended that, as per the addendum to the guidelines of the Central Pollution Control Board No.B-13011/1/2019- 20/AQM dated 16.08.2021, a petroleum retail outlet shall not be located within a distance of 50 meters from the nearest point of a water body. Accordingly, a clarification was sought from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board regarding the applicability of the provisions of the Central Pollution Control Board guidelines in cases where a property is situated within 50 meters radius of the proposed retail outlet is recorded as 'nilam' in the revenue records, but is visibly dry land. In response to the said clarification, the Chief Environmental Engineer has stated that application can be considered based on the land category recorded in the revenue records. Additionally it was clarified that the application cannot be considered if land recorded as 'nilam' is treated as 'wet land'. The Pollution Control Board has also issued Ext.R2(b) letter stating that, it was not within their powers to state whether 'nilam' is 'wet land' or not. The petitioner's application has not been rejected, but is kept on the hold for clarification. Hence, the writ petition is to be dismissed. 4. Heard; the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents 1 to 4 and the learned Standing Counsel for the 5 th respondent. 5. The core of the dispute is regarding the interpretation of paragraph (a) of Ext.P13 guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board, which reads as follows: “a) All the surface water bodies irrespective of utility shall be protected from any possible contamination. These include lakes, ponds, streams, rivers, wetlands, canals and creeks, as per revenue records. Retail outlets shall not be located within a distance of 50 meters from the nearest point of water bodies. In case of flood way is not defined, the distance shall be considered from firm banks/edge of river. These include lakes, ponds, streams, rivers, wetlands, canals and creeks, as per revenue records. Retail outlets shall not be located within a distance of 50 meters from the nearest point of water bodies. In case of flood way is not defined, the distance shall be considered from firm banks/edge of river. The siting criterion is to be implemented for all new petrol pumps where construction by OMCs starts post the issuance of these guidelines”. 6. A plain reading of the above clause demonstrates that, retail outlets shall not be established within a distance of 50 meters from any water body. 7. The expression 'water body' has not been defined in Ext.P13 guidelines. Wikipedia states that a water body means any significant accumulation of water, which refers to oceans, seas, lakes, and includes smaller pools of water such as ponds and wetlands. 8. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2 nd respondent, it is evident that the 4 th respondent has unambiguously stated that the petitioners' property is classified as 'purayidam' and the adjacent property is classified as 'nilam' in the BTR. It is no one's case that the adjacent property is a water body falling within the foul of Ext.P13 guidelines. Therefore, the clarification sought by the 1 st respondent was unnecessary. 9. Going by the mandate in Ext.P13 guidelines, the prohibition to commission a retail outlet is only when there is a water body within 50 meters from the proposed retail outlet. The said restriction is incorporated in the guidelines with an intention to avert contamination/pollution of the water body due to any seepage from the retail outlet. 10. In the case at hand, as the adjacent property is not a wetland and there is no water body, there is no prohibition to establish the retail outlet. The classification of the property by the State as 'purayidam' and 'nilam' is only for the purpose of paying land tax. [Read the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in RDO, Fort Cochin & others vs. Jalaja Dileep and another ( 2015 (2) KHC 109 )]. 11. In the above conspectus, I do not find any legal impediment in the 1 st respondent proceeding with the application submitted by the 5 th respondent for NOC, to establish the retail outlet in the petitioner's property. 11. In the above conspectus, I do not find any legal impediment in the 1 st respondent proceeding with the application submitted by the 5 th respondent for NOC, to establish the retail outlet in the petitioner's property. In the light of the above discussions, especially in view of the counter affidavit of the 2 nd respondent, I am inclined to allow the writ petition. Accordingly, I direct the 1 st respondent to consider and dispose of the application submitted by the 5 th respondent, in accordance with law, and as expeditiously as possible, as per the observations made in the judgment, at any rate, within one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.