Kerala High Court: District Authority Cannot Deny NOC For Fuel Outlet On Ground That Site Location Not Covered By Notification| Petroleum Rules

The Kerala High Court in the case Jayarajan B.C. v. Lakshmi Mallya And Ors observed and has made it clear that under the Petroleum Rules, 2002, the District Authority is not empowered to reject No Objection Certificate, NOC for the fuel outlet which being on the ground that the proposed site is different from that which is mentioned in the notification. The court stated that Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 stipulates for the grant No Objection Certificate, NOC.
In the present case, the court rejected the application for NOC moved by the Indian Oil Corporation by the Additional District Magistrate wherein the court noted that the proposed site location for establishment of a petroleum outlet was different from the one which is mentioned in the notification being issued by the company.
The bench headed by single judge observed and has stated that it has been held in Rule 144 that it was not within the domain of the Additional District Magistrate to interpret the notification and reject the No Objection Certificate, NOC. The Division bench comprising of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen in the case observed wherein an appeal was mase made before the court, perused the scope of Rule 144, and it has been noted that the nature of power under the Petroleum Act and Rules, 2002 lays down that the insistence upon NOC is for the purpose of protecting public interest and for the public safety.
Therefore, it has also been observed by the court that the Single Judge had rightly interfered with the order of the district authority.
Further, the court in the case stated that this court decision does not approve or validate the proposed location by the dealer, and stated that if the proposed location was found to be in variance or deviation of the notification. Thus, the appellant in the case would be at the liberty to challenge the same in proper manner.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal.
The counsel, Senior Advocate P.K. Suresh Kumar, and Advocate K.P. Sudheer appeared for the Appellant. The counsel, Senior Government Pleader V. Tekchand, Standing Counsel for Indian Oil Corporation M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar, and Advocate A. Salini Lal, Advocate R. Sunil Kumar, Advocate Ramola Nayanapally, K. John Mathai, Advocate Joson Manavalan, Advocate Kuryan Thomas, Advocate Paulose C. Abraham, and Advocate Raja Kannan represented the respondent.