Kerala High Court | Petroleum Outlet Can Be Set Up Near Colleges | CPCB Siting Norms Apply Only to Schools and Hospitals; Licence Rejection Quashed
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice S. Manu set aside the rejection order issued by the Controller of Explosives that denied approval for establishing a retail outlet of petroleum products. The Court directed the authority to reconsider the application afresh, observing that the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) guidelines on distance requirements apply only to schools, hospitals with more than ten beds, and designated residential areas. The Bench ordered the authority to make a fresh decision within one month after providing the applicant and the oil company an opportunity to be heard.
The dispute arose from an invitation issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited to establish new retail outlets for petroleum products, including one proposed at Mananthavady Town in Wayanad district. The petitioner submitted her application, offering thirty cents of land in Re.Sy.No.683/2 of Mananthavady Village, which was accepted by the Corporation. Following this, the Corporation approached the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives for initial approval, which was granted on 28 March 2024.
Subsequently, on 19 April 2024, the District Collector issued a No Objection Certificate under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application to the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives on 27 January 2025, seeking necessary approval. However, on 24 February 2025, the authority rejected the application by issuing an order referred to as Ext.P5. The rejection prompted the petitioner to approach the High Court through a writ petition challenging the decision.
In the petition, the petitioner contended that the grounds cited in the rejection order were untenable. The order stated that the proposed site was within thirty meters of the boundary of Newman College and that the location fell under a mixed zone without confirmation that it was outside a designated residential area. Additionally, the order recorded that the site was not compliant with CPCB guidelines dated 7 January 2020.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the CPCB guidelines specified siting criteria concerning the minimum distance between new retail outlets and sensitive locations such as schools, hospitals with more than ten beds, and residential areas designated under local laws. Colleges, it was argued, were not included in this category. It was further argued that the Secretary of the local authority had certified the site as falling within a mixed zone, which implied that it was not a designated residential area.
On the other hand, the Deputy Solicitor General representing the respondents submitted that the petitioner had obtained the initial approval without disclosing the boundary wall of the nearby college in the drawings attached to the application, amounting to misrepresentation. It was also stated that an earlier application dated 28 January 2025 had been rejected on 29 January 2025 by a letter marked Annexure-R1(b), following which another application was submitted on 22 February 2025. The respondents argued that under the siting criteria, a minimum distance of thirty meters was required from educational institutions, and since a college was located within this distance, the rejection was justified.
The respondents also questioned the certificates issued by the Secretary of the Mananthavady Municipality. The first certificate dated 7 February 2025 affirmed that the site fell under a mixed zone and not under the residential zone, while a later certificate dated 25 February 2025 confirmed that the site was not a designated residential area as per local laws. The respondents argued that the certificates were contradictory.
Additionally, the Central Pollution Control Board filed a statement clarifying its norms. The Board cited Paragraph H of its guidelines for new retail outlets, which stated that such outlets should not be located within a radial distance of fifty meters from schools, hospitals with ten beds and above, and designated residential areas. Where providing fifty meters was not possible, additional safety measures could be implemented, but under no circumstances should the distance be less than thirty meters. The CPCB maintained that only schools and hospitals with more than ten beds, along with designated residential areas, were mentioned in the guidelines.
It was also noted that the CPCB had submitted before the National Green Tribunal in February 2024 that colleges were not considered sensitive locations for the purpose of siting criteria. The expert committee had deliberated the issue but chose not to include colleges, distinguishing them from schools and hospitals. The matter was stated to be sub judice before the Tribunal.
Thus, the dispute centered on whether proximity to a college could be a valid reason for rejecting approval under the Petroleum Rules and CPCB guidelines, and whether the municipal certificates were contradictory in substance.
The Court carefully examined the CPCB guidelines dated 7 January 2020 and recorded: “In case of siting criteria for petrol pumps new Retail Outlets shall not be located within a radial distance of 50 meters (from fill point/dispensing units/vent pipe whichever is nearest) from schools, hospitals (10 beds and above) and residential areas designated as per local laws. In case of constraints in providing 50 meters distance, the retail outlet shall implement additional safety measures as prescribed by PESO. In no case the distance between new retail outlet from schools, hospitals (10 beds and above) and residential area designated as per local laws shall be less than 30 meters. No high tension line shall pass over the retail outlet.”
The Court observed that the guidelines specifically mentioned only schools, hospitals with ten beds or more, and designated residential areas. It stated: “There is no generic/general terms employed in the paragraph to bring any broad categories of institutions within its purview. The only inference that can be drawn is that the guidelines dated 7.1.2020 issued by the CPCB for setting up of new petrol pumps do not require any minimum distance between educational institutions aside from schools and retail outlets that sell petroleum products.”
Addressing the contention that the term “schools” should be expansively interpreted to include colleges, the Court recorded: “If the intention was as canvassed, nothing stopped the CPCB from bringing other types of educational institutions also within the ambit of paragraph ‘H’ by expressly mentioning the same or by employing the generic expression 'educational institutions' rather than specifically using the word 'schools'.”
The Court also took note of the CPCB’s submission before the National Green Tribunal: “Colleges have not been included considering schools and hospitals (10 beds and above), as sensitive locations. It is humbly submitted that the matter is sub-judice at present.”
Based on this clarification, the Court held: “Since the author of the guidelines, CPCB, has clarified before the NGT (PB) that it did not intend to include colleges within the siting criteria treating them as sensitive locations, it is not for any other authority to give an expansive interpretation to the criteria and include colleges within its scope.”
Turning to the municipal certificates, the Court observed: “In the certificate issued on 7.2.2025, Secretary of the Municipality stated that the proposed site ‘falls under the mixed zone, (not under the residential zone)’. Further it was stated that it is situated more than 50 m. away from the nearby residential zone as per the master plan of Mananthavady Municipality. In the certificate issued later on 25.2.2025, the Secretary stated that the 'proposed site/key plan is not a designated residential area as per the local laws'. I find it difficult to comprehend how the 2nd respondent found a contradiction in the terms of these certificates.”
The Court concluded that both certificates consistently indicated that the site was not located in a designated residential area, and therefore the objection on this ground was unfounded.
Finally, addressing the third ground in the rejection order, the Court remarked: “The third reason stated in Ext.P5 is that the proposed site is not compliant of the CPCB guidelines dated 7.1.2020. No further explanation is given. Two other reasons stated are obviously on the basis of CPCB guidelines. Therefore, the third reason given can be considered only as a reiteration of the reasons already stated.”
On these observations, the Court held that the rejection order could not be sustained in law.
The Court, having found the rejection order legally unsustainable, issued the following directions: “I therefore set aside the same. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner dated 22.2.2025 anew and to take a fresh decision. The petitioner shall be free to submit a proper drawing as also other required documents. In case the 2nd respondent requires any further clarification, he shall provide an opportunity to the petitioner as well as the authorised representative of the 3rd respondent to appear before him and to explain their case. The 2nd respondent shall take a fresh decision in the matter as directed above, keeping in mind the findings and observations in this judgment within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.”
The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Sri. R. Sunil Kumar, Smt. A. Salini Lal, Sri. Jinu P. Binu
For the Respondents: O.M. Shalina, Deputy Solicitor General of India; Sri. Santharam P., Standing Counsel, Mananthavady Municipality; Sri. Noel Jacob; Sri. Raajesh S. Subrahmanian; Sri. M.S. Amal Dharsan; Dr. Thushara James
Case Title: Bindhu Kuniparambath v. The Joint Chief Controller of Explosives & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:62117
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 12226 of 2025
Bench: Justice S. Manu
