This PIL challenged a No Objection Certificate issued for a petrol bunk near a water body. The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that no statutory prohibition against setting up retail outlets near water bodies was in force at the time of issuance, and statutory compliance was established.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.A.(MD)No.8417 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 14.12.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
W.P.(MD)No.8417 of 2021
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.6347, 6348 and 6349 of 2021
M.Liakath Ali
.. Petitioner
Vs.
St. Goerge Fort, Chennai.
Dindigul District.
1/8
W.A.(MD)No.8417 of 2021
9.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, 76, Mount Salai, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. ** .. Respondents
** RR 8 and 9 are impleaded vide Court Order dated 09.08.2021 in WMP(MD) No.9355/2021 in WP(MD)No.8417/2021
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the "No Objection Certificate" in R.Dis.No.3297/2021/C4, dated 26.02.2021, issued by the third respondent, in favour of the 7th respondent for having the petrol bunk in the land in S.No.638/3 in Ward-15, in Batlagundu Village, in Nilakottai Taluk, in Dindigul District, and quash the same as it violates sitting criterai of Central Pollution Control Board and the Tamil Nadu State Laws and to direct the first respondent to issue the suitable directions to all the District Collectors of the State to scrupulously follow the sitting criteria of CPCB and the Tamil Nadu State Laws while granting "No Objection Certificate" to the persons for having the petrol bunk in their agricultural lands adjoining to the water bodies.
For Petitioner :Mr.R.Suriya Narayanan For Respondents :Mr.P.Subbaraj, Government Advocate for RR 1 to 3 & 5 Mr.S.Jeyasingh, Senior Panel Counsel for R4 Mr.S.Nateshraja for R6 Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel for Mr.J.Barathan for R7 Mr.Vijayakumari Natarajan for R9 Mr.I.Irulappan for R8
O R D E R
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
Seeking to quash the "No Objection Certificate" (NOC) issued by the third respondent to run a petrol bunk by the seventh respondent, the Public Interest Litigation is filed.
2/8
W.A.(MD)No.8417 of 2021
respondents intend to house a petrol retail outlet therein. Since locating a petrol outlet within 50 meters of a Kanmai (waterbody) is a violation of the norms stipulated by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and the Tamil Nadu State Building laws, he submitted a representation dated 27.03.2021 to measure the land and cancel the NOC in vain. Thereafter, he filed W.P.(MD)No.7761 of 2021 seeking a direction to the respondents 2 and 3/respondents 3 and 4 herein not to grant NOC and if already grated to cancel the same and during the course of the hearing, the copy of the NOC, which was granted even before the filing of the said writ petition was produced. Thus, this Court dismissed the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the NOC in accordance with law. Hence, the present writ petition.
3/8
W.A.(MD)No.8417 of 2021
I. As per Guidelines dated 07.01.2020 prepared by CPCB and MoPNG for 'Setting up of Petrol Pumps', all new retail outlets set up with sale potential of 300 KL MS per month in cities with population more than 1 lakh and with sale potential of 100 KL MS per month in cities having
4/8
W.A.(MD)No.8417 of 2021
population more than 10 lakh will be required to intall Vapour Recovery System (VRS).
II. As per Guidelines addendum dated 16.08.2021, 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 streams and rivers, the distance shall be considered from firm banks/edge or river. The siting criterion is to be implemented for all new petrol pumps where construction by Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs) starts post the issuance of these guidelines.
III. Retail outlets coming within 50 meters to 100 meters from the nearest point of surface water body shall have secondary containment by way of double walled tanks or concrete protection walls around underground Storage Tank (UST).
IV. Ground water and soil quality monitoring near premises of fuel retail outlets shall be conducted by OMCs once a year through E(P) Act, 1986 approved labs of labs with national/international accreditation. The monitoring shall be done for those Fuel Retail Outlets which are located within 100 meters from the nearest point of surface water bodies. These shall be applicable to all petrol pumps, regardless of the date of establishment. In case of any clarification and / or difficulty in obtaining samples for groundwater and soil quality monitoring. OMCs may seek assistance of local administration/SPCB/PPC/CGWB, Protocol for soil and ground water monitoring.
V. Groundwater and soil quality monitoring shall also be conducted by OMCs before installation of the new fuel retail outlet, for those retails outlets coming up within 100 meters from the nearest point of surface water bodies."
The ninth respondent also stated that automobile fuel outlets are exempted from the purview of consent management of TNPCB by CPCB and hence, petrol pump stations are not brought under the consent mechanism of TNPCB. In fact, it is stated that TNPCB in the letters dated 12.11.2020 and 06.09.2021 requested the oil companies to follow the guidelines for setting up of Petrol Pumps issued by the CPCB. While admitting the fact that the subject petroleum outlet is located within 50 meters from the water body, the ninth respondent submitted that the PESO certificate was obtaining prior to the issuance of CPCB guidelines addendum dated 16.08.2021.
5/8
W.A.(MD)No.8417 of 2021
seventh respondent and the other learned counsels for the parties and perused the materials placed before this Court.
"5. I respectfully submit that the basis for the writ petition is the draft of guidelines of Central Pollution Control Board, in which, it is mentioned tat petroleum retail outlet should not be established within 50 mts from water bodies. It is not an office memorandum as stated in para 5 of the affidavit. Till date no office memorandum was circulates to any oil Corporation either by CPCB or by TNPCB regarding setting up the retail outlets near water bodies. The TNPCB also confirms the same vide reply dated 07/07/2021 sent to this respondent in response to the clarification sought for by me on 22/06/2021. The guidelines for establishing retail outlets near water bodies were drafted by the expert committee and the same was placed before public domain for suggestions as did earlier. Only after considering the suggestions, the guidelines will be finalized and will be sent to oil companies by way of official memorandum. We have also sought for clarification from CPCB by mail dated 05/07/2021. The CPCB confirmed by reply mail dated 07/07/2021 that the draft guidelines for setting up of petrol pumps near water bodies are under finalization. As such there is no guidelines prohibiting establishment of the petroleum retail outlet near water bodies."
That being the position, the contention of the petitioner that the NOC issued by the third respondent violates CPCB guidelines has no merit acceptance.
6/8
W.A.(MD)No.8417 of 2021
Further, the third respondent stated that he conducted site inspection on 17.02.2021 and after receipt of the representation from the petitioner on 27.03.2021, deputed the Tahsildar to conduct field inspection, who, in the report dated 20.04.2021, uttered that there was no violation, as claimed by the petitioner.
// True Copy //
/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
7/8
W.A.(MD)No.8417 of 2021
To
1.The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 2.The District Collector, Dindigul District.
3.The District Revenue Officer, Dindigul District.
5.The Executive Engineer (W.R.O.), Manjalar Sub Division, Public Works Department, Periyakulam.
6.The Territory Manager, Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd., No.37, Tirupparakundram Road, Pasumalai, Madurai-4. 7.The Regional Director, Central Pollution Control Board, Floor No.77A, South Avenue Road, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai-600 058. ** 8.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, 76, Mount Salai, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. +1 CC to M/s.VIJAYAKUMARI NATARAJAN, Advocate (SR-38630[F] dated 14/12/2021 ) +2 CC to M/s.T.R.JEYAPALAM, Advocate (SR-38642[F] dated 14/12/2021 ) +1 CC to M/s.S.JEYASINGH, Advocate ( SR-38682[F] dated 14/12/2021 ) +1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-38830[F] dated 15/12/2021 )
W.P.(MD)No.8417 of 2021 14.12.2021
KM(CO)
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ GC(11.01.2022) 8P 14C
8/8
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the No Objection Certificate issued in favour of a petrol bunk violates Central Pollution Control Board guidelines regarding proximity to water bodies.
Whether the competent authority was required to inspect the site before issuing the No Objection Certificate.
Whether the rules of land use and building regulations were complied with in granting the No Objection Certificate.
M. Liakath Ali
The State of Tamil Nadu
The District Collector, Dindigul District
The District Revenue Officer, Dindigul District
The Joint Chief Controller of Explosives
The Executive Engineer (W.R.O.), Manjalar Sub Division
Pushpa Sathyanaaryana
P. Velmurugan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
