Karnataka High Court
Thippeswamy T vs The Deputy Commissioner on 29 April, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 24.03.2025
Pronounced on : 29.04.2025
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.33877 OF 2024 (GM - RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION No.1719 OF 2025 (GM - RES)
IN WRIT PETITION No.33877 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SMT.N.PADMAVATHAMMA
W/O.LATE CHIDANANDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
NAYAKANAHATTI,
CHITRADURGA - 577 536.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI H.KANTHARAJ, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SRI H.K.RAVI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
2
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
2. MANGALORE REFINERY AND
PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED
A SUBSIDIARY OF OIL AND
NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED
(GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING
KUTHETHUR P.O.,
VILA KATIPALLA
MANGALURU - 575 030
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3. RAVIKUMAR J.R.,
S/O P.M.RAJASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
RESIDING AT NAYAKANAHATTY
CHALLAKERE (TQ)
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 536.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R-1; SRI RAYAPPA Y.HADAGALI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SRI A.C.BALARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R-3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE 'NO OBJECTIONS' CERTIFICATE BEARING NO. EXL:CR-475637/2024-25 DTD. 30.11.2024 VIDE ANNX-A ISSUED BY THE R-1 BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI.
IN WRIT PETITION No.1719 OF 2025 BETWEEN:
THIPPESWAMY T., 3 S/O SANNA THIPPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT NAYAKANAHATTY, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA - 577 536 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT:
NO.52/2, 1ST FLOOR, CHINNASWAMY REDDY BUILDING, BHAVANI ROAD, HEBBAGODI, BENGALURU - 560 099.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI H.KANTHARAJ, SR.ADVOCATE A/W SRI H.K.RAVI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
2. MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED, A SUBSIDIARY OF OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED, (GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING) KUTHETHUR P.O., VILA KATIPALLA, MANGALURU - 575 030.
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R-1; SRI RAYAPPA Y.HADAGALI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SRI A.C.BALARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT) 4 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE 'NO OBJECTIONS CERTIFICATE' BEARING NO. EXL.CR-475637/2024-25 DTD. 30.11.2024 VIDE ANNX-A ISSUED BY THE R-1 BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 24.03.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CAV ORDER The petitioners, in both these cases, call in question a 'No Objection Certificate' issued on 30-11-2024 by the 1st respondent/Deputy Commissioner for setting up a petroleum unit in the place allotted.
2. Heard Sri H Kantharaj, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Mohammed Jaffar Shah, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 and Sri Rayappa Hadagali, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, in both the cases and Sri A C Balaraj, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 in W.P.No.33877 of 2024 and for impleading applicant in W.P.No.1719 of 2025.5
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-
The petitioner in W.P.No.33877 of 2024 is a holder of licence and running a petroleum unit in Sy.No.499, Khatha No.572 of Nayakanahatti Village, Challakere Taluk. The 2nd respondent/Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited invites applications for the purpose of setting up of a petroleum unit in Sy.
No. 212/5 measuring 25 guntas in Nayakanahatti Village, Nayakanahatti Hobli, Challakere Taluk. The 1st respondent/ Deputy Commissioner was called upon to inspect the property and give his no objection or nod for setting up of the petroleum unit therein.
The Chief Officer of the Town Panchayat on 26-09-2024, in furtherance of the aforesaid requirement, issues a public notice on 20-11-2024 calling for objections from the stake holders. The petitioner in W.P.No.33877 of 2024 claims that due to her old age she did not file her objections, but her nephew submitted the objections and requested not to allot/issue licence for the proposed petrol or diesel unit. On 30-11-2024 no objections is issued by the 1st respondent as sought by the 2nd respondent to set up a petroleum unit. Initially, Writ Petition No.33877 of 2024 was 6 preferred on 10-12-2024 and later, on 17-01-2025 springs the companion petition, all by family members of the person who is presently running the petroleum outlet.
4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that there was no reasonable opportunity to any person to file the objections, as paper publication with regard to objections comes about on 20-11-2024.
15 days' time was given, but no objection is given by the 1st respondent within 10 days i.e. on 30-11-2024. Therefore, it is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The other submission is that, petroleum unit now sought to be established, is within the distance of 300 meters from a nearby retail outlet. Therefore, it was objected to. The objections were not filed by the person who was holding licence, but by the family member.
5. Per-contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would submit a threshold bar of maintenance of the petition.
It is his submission that the petitioners are the family members of a person who is running a petroleum outlet nearby. Therefore, he is a 7 rival operator. A rival operator in law has no locus to challenge on the ground that nearby another unit is coming and that his business would go away. Insofar as 300 meters contention is concerned, the learned counsel would take this Court through the recommendation of the Tahsildar, which clearly holds that the proposed unit is 380 meters away.
6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners would now join issue in contending that the Apex Court in identical circumstances in the case of INDIAN OIL CORPORATION v.
V.B.R. MENON1 has held as follows:
".... .... ....
Consent to establish and consent to operate
43. What is "consent to establish" (CTE) and what is "consent to operate" (CTO)? Consent to establish (CTE) means the prior permission of the Pollution Control Board to begin the work of construction of petrol retailing outlet at any place. At this stage, the groundwater level in the proposed site, nature of the groundwater, its corrosive properties, availability of residential premises, schools, probable danger to environment from the proposed outlet, etc. would be considered by the Pollution Control Board. In case consent to establish it is given, the conditions to be complied with would be prescribed in order to safeguard the air ambience and groundwater quality and also the soil. The power in this regard is available under Section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
1(2023) 7 SCC 368 8
44. Consent to operate (CTO) means after the establishment of the retail petroleum outlets, a certificate is issued permitting to commence operation. At this stage, the actual compliance of the conditions imposed while issuing the "consent to establish" are ascertained. In case, any additional measures are required to be undertaken, further orders would be issued. After satisfying about the complete safeguard to environment such certificate is issued. In case of a new outlet, the company will first get the consent to establish and after establishment and before operationalising the petrol bank, the consent to operate is to be obtained. In existing outlets, the safeguards available in their units will have to be shown, thereby indicating and assuring the Pollution Control Board that the unit would not cause damage to the environment. After such satisfaction, the Pollution Control Board would issue a certificate permitting them to operate continuously. The object of the last direction is to ensure that the existing outlets are safe not only regarding air pollution but also against seepage to the groundwater and soil. NGT has inherent power to issue this direction since it is only to ensure the safety of the existing units.
45. The fundamental documents required for seeking CTE and CTO are as under:
45.1. Consent to establish:
(i) Site plan of the production unit/project
(ii) Brief project report which covers the details of raw material, proposed product, the capital cost of the establishment (land and plant machinery), water balance, water source, and its proposed quantity
(iii) Land documentation such as rent deed/registration deed/lease deed
(iv) Details of air pollution control/water pollution control equipment
(v) MoA/Partnership deed 45.2. Consent to operate:9
(i) Copy of the last consent granted by competent authority
(ii) Layout schematics manifesting the detail of manufacturing processes
(iii) Latest analysis report of effluent, solid wastes, fuel gases, and hazardous wastes.
(iv) Balance sheet copy attested by CA
(v) Detail relating to land in case trade effluent is
discharged on land for percolation
(vi) Occupation registration accorded by Town &
Country Planning Department in case of area development projects/Building & construction projects
(vii) MoA/Partnership deed
46. It will be in the fitness of things to incorporate in this judgment the guidelines issued by CPCB vide its Office Memorandum dated 7-1-2020 for setting up new petroleum pumps. The guidelines are as follows:
"Guidelines for setting up of new petrol pumps A. Containment and treatment of spillages from fuel filling operations at petrol pumps:
1. Petrol pumps located in areas with high groundwater table i.e. groundwater levels less than 04 metres shall have secondary containment by way of double-walled tanks or concrete protection walls so as to minimise groundwater and soil contamination. It shall be the responsibility of OMC to properly get measured groundwater level at the site of proposed petrol pump and ensure implementation of these adequate protection measures for such sites. Details of measures taken by oil marketing company shall be placed in public domain and 10 in case of contradictory view, view of State/Central Ground Water Board/Authority will prevail.
2. All new retail outlets shall have underground tanks/above ground tank and its ancillary components such as pipes, flexible connectors, pumps fittings, etc. protected from leaks due to corrosion by adopting materials (HDPE/Mild Steel, etc.) with required protective coating, as applicable, duly approved by PESO.
3. Any major leakage/spillage of petrol, diesel, lube oil (more than barrel-165 litres) occurs at fuelling station, OMC concerned shall report to State Pollution Control Board, PESO and District Administration under intimation to CPCB within 24 hours of occurrence.
Operation of underground storage tank (UST) concerned and its ancillary components shall be stopped immediately and not be resumed till corrective measures to contain and stop leakage/spillages are implemented to the satisfaction of PESO and SPCB concerned.
OMCs will be held liable for environmental compensation (imposed by SPCBs/PCCs) and assessment of environmental damage (depending on extent of contamination in soil and groundwater) and site remediation. Consultant/Expert agency appointed by OMCs for damage assessment and site remediation shall have minimum national/international experience of 5 years in this field. Various approved methods shall be considered for cleaning underground contaminants.
4. All DUs shall have auto cut-off nozzles which shuts dispensation of fuel if its level in customer fuel tank reaches full capacity.
5. Breakaways to be installed for all the hoses of dispensing units to reduce spillage in the event of customer vehicles moves away with nozzle still in the fuelling position.
6. Single/Double plane swivel with breakaway coupling shall be installed for all the dispensing units for better positioning of nozzle while refuelling does not fall off accidently.
117. In pressurised dispensation, all dispensing units shall be installed with shear valves to cut the fuel flow from pipeline immediately upon accidental knocking of dispensing units from its position.
8. In pressurised system all Submersible Turbine Pumps (STPs) are to be installed with line leak detectors and in the event of pipeline leaks STPs shall stop pumping fuel from underground tanks.
9. Emergency stop button switch shall be provided on the Multi-Product Dispenser (MPD) to stop the dispensation in case of emergency.
10. Automation system shall be installed at all new retail outlets to alert in case of tank leak by way of auto gauging system approved by PESO.
11. All retail outlets shall provide overfill alarm through automation.
12. Measures for spill containment in fill point chambers and forecourt area shall be implemented as prescribed by PESO.
B. Check on leakages (leakage detection system) from underground storage tanks so as to prevent groundwater and soil contamination:
1. All new retail outlets will have automation system installed which will provide reports on volume balance after everyday operation and records shall be maintained.
2. Manual gauging shall be done once in a month and compare the same with Automatic Tank Gauging for accuracy.
3. Daily MS and HSD loss shall not exceed MoPNG prescribed limits. In case of leakage beyond such limits, matter shall be got analysed by OMCs and further action shall be taken for ascertaining the 12 reasons of losses. In case of leakage resulting in soil/groundwater contamination:
(a) OMC concerned shall report to State Pollution Control Board, PESO and District Administration under intimation to CPCB within 24 hours of occurrence. Operation of such underground storage tank (UST) and its ancillary components shall be stopped immediately.
(b) Fuel shall be removed immediately from underground storage tank to prevent further release to environment. Measures to prevent explosion due to vapours released due to leakage as recommended by PESO shall be implemented immediately.
(c) OMCs will be held liable for environmental compensation (imposed by SPCBs/PCCS) and assessment of environmental damage (depending on extent of contamination in soil and groundwater) and site remediation.
(d) Consultant/Expert agency appointed by OMCs for damage assessment and site remediation shall have minimum national/international experience of 05 years in this field. Various approved methods shall be considered for cleaning underground contaminants.
(e) Operation of underground tank and its ancillary components shall not be resumed till corrective measures to contain and stop leakages are implemented to the satisfaction of PESO and SPCB concerned.
4. All underground tanks and pipelines shall be subjected to test for leaks every 7 years.
C. Policy towards treatment and disposal of sludge removed from underground tanks during cleaning:
D. Installation, operation and maintenance of vapour recovery system:13
1. All new retail outlets set up with sale potential of 300 KL MS per month and setting up in cities with population more than 1 lakh will be provided with YRS. YRS should be functional by the time of sale of MS touch 300 KL. In case of failure of installation of VRS, environment compensation will be levied by SPCBs/PCCs equivalent to the cost of VRS and this will further increase proportionate to the period of non-compliance.
2. Any new retail outlet set up in cities having population more than 10 lakhs and having sale potential of 100 KL MS per month will be provided with YRS. YRS should be installed within a period 03 months from the day of sale of MS touch 100 KL. In case of failure of installation of VRS, environment compensation will be levied by SPCBs/PCCs equivalent to the cost of VRS and this will further increase proportionate to the period of non-compliance.
3. In case of Stage II VRS, nozzle shall be provided with flexible cover flap or other alternative system for proper covering of filling tank and therefore proper recovery of vapours.
4. OMCs are responsible for maintaining installed VRS. They have to maintain periodic inspections for AJL regulator as prescribed by Legal Metrology. Proper record shall be maintained,
5. Working of dispenser shall be interlinked with VRS functioning. Online system shall be developed within 06 months to monitor status of operation of VRS. In case of non-operation of YRS, the same shall be automatically reported to OMC concerned. YRS shall be brought into operation immediately within 24 hrs and in any case within 72 hrs failing which sale of MS shall be stopped from the fuelling station. Proper records of operation of YRS shall be maintained.
6. Work zone monitoring for total VOC and Benzene shall be conducted by OMCs for petrol pumps selling more than 300 KL/month and more than 10 lakh population (in first phase) by the EP Act, 1986 approved labs once in a 14 year to check compliance with OSHA norms (Time-
Weighted Average) and report shall be submitted to SPCB. In addition, pilot study shall be conducted by OMCs through expert institutions for online monitoring of VOCs.
E. Groundwater and soil quality monitoring within petrol pump selling more than 300 KL/month and more than 10 lakh population shall be conducted by OMCs once in two years through the EP Act, 1986 approved labs for the following parameters from the nearest source and report submitted to SPCB:
Permissible limit Sl. Parameter Permissible limit No.
1. Total petroleum hydrocarbons 600 pg/I
2. BTEX (i) Benzene-950 pg/I
(ii) Toluene-300 pg/I
(iii) Zylenes--
(a) O-xylene-350 pg/I
(b) M&p-xylene-200 pg/I
3. Ethanol 1400 Pg/I
4. Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether 13 Pg/I
5. PAH 0.000 Pg/I Enforcement agencies including SPCB can collect samples in and around petrol pump to check contamination.
F. Measures for protection of workers' health
1. All workers engaged at retail outlets may be covered under ESI, OMC dealers shall implement the personal protective equipment (PPE) on a par with Labour laws.
2. IEC (Information Education Communication) activities should be organised by OMC dealers for workers at regular intervals in order to sensitise them about harmful impacts of VOC emissions, G. Audit of all protection measures and monitoring system implemented at petrol pumps:
15PESO shall conduct audit of tanks and fuel equipment including pipes, overfill protection equipment and alarm system on annual basis and maintain records.
H. Siting criteria of retail outlets:
In case of siting criteria for petrol pumps new retail outlets shall not be located within a radial distance of 50 metres (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 metres 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 metres. No high tension line shall pass over the retail outlet."
47.Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 places restrictions, both on establishment and operation of any industrial plant located in an air pollution control area without previous consent of the Board. The legislative intent behind this provision would lead to decipher two concepts -- one, the consent for the purpose of establishing an industrial plant while the other for operation of that plant.
The purpose of this Section is to ensure that when a unit or an industrial plant is given consent to operate, the unit ought to have satisfied all the conditions stated in the order of consent to establish and would have installed the requisite effluent treatment plants and other anti-pollution devices to ensure that it causes no pollution.
48. The upshot of our aforesaid discussion is that NGT was well within its powers and jurisdiction to issue the directions which have been impugned before us. However, we would like to address on the question -- Whether the impugned directions are reasonable and whether the same may lead to unnecessary harassment and cause immense hardships to the retail outlets?
49. We take notice of the fact that all the appellants before us have installed VRS and VRD at their sites and retail outlets. We also take notice of the fact that Respondent 2 16 (original applicant) had not prayed for before NGT, Chennai to make CTE and CTO mandatory. The prayers in OA No. 138 of 2020 (SZ) were limited to the State of Tamil Nadu only. However, NGT, Chennai by its impugned order [V.B.R. Menon v. State of T.N., 2021 SCC OnLine NGT 3583] has directed all the petroleum ROs in cities having more than 10 lakh population to install VRS mechanism which are having turnover of more than 300 KL/month. We also take notice of the fact that CPCB in consultation with the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas has issued circulars/guidelines from time to time for installation of VRS (also known as Vapour Recovery Device circular). We are not inclined to disturb the impugned directions issued by NGT, Chennai in regard to installation of the VRS. CPCB shall ensure that these directions are scrupulously followed and complied with.
50. What is important for us to note is that in the directions/guidelines issued by CPCB dated 30-4-2020 and 7-3- 2016, respectively, the automobile fuel outlets have been classified as "green" which may be exempted from consent management. The learned Solicitor General submitted that it is only after due consideration and deliberations that CPCB issued the said directions. NGT itself in para 66 of its impugned order [V.B.R. Menon v. State of T.N., 2021 SCC OnLine NGT 3583] has noted that the oil industry is characterised as "green category" and the CTE and CTO was not required. It appears to us that the apprehension on the part of NGT that the installation of VRS may not be strictly monitored by the State Pollution Control Boards, led NGT to issue directions to CPCB and State Pollution Control Boards to issue a circular making it mandatory for obtaining the CTE and CTO as a condition precedent for establishing new petroleum outlets. What has been argued before us and also on the basis of the materials on record, we are convinced that it is not necessary to make obtaining of CTE and CTO mandatory."
(Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court considers the Siting criteria. It is held that in case of constraints in providing 50 meters distance, the retail outlet shall implement additional safety measures as prescribed by PESO and in 17 no case the distance between new retail out lets from schools, hospitals or residential area shall be less than 30 meters. Therefore, the safety measures by PESO will have to be applied and it is submitted that PESO has already granted its no objections by a condition that safety measures should be applied and only then the outlet would commence. Therefore, the public safety projected by the petitioners is taken care of.
7. The issue whether any other grievance can be considered at the hands of a rival operator, or the rival operator shooting from the petitioners' shoulder, need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. The Apex Court in the case of THE NAGAR RICE & FLOUR MILLS v. N.TEEKAPPA GOWDA & BROS.2 has held as follows:
".... .... ....
9. Section 8(3)(c) is merely regulatory, if it is not complied with the appellants may probably be exposed to a penalty, but a competitor in the business cannot seek to prevent the appellants from exercising their right to carry on business, because of the default, nor can the rice mill of the appellants be regarded as a new rice mill. Competition in the trade or business may be subject to such restrictions as are permissible and are imposed by the State by a law 2 (1970)1 SCC 575 18 enacted in the interests of the general public under Article 19(6) but a person cannot claim independently of such restriction that another person shall not carry on business or trade so as to affect his trade or business adversely. The appellants complied with the statutory requirements for carrying on rice milling operations in the building on the new site. Even assuming that no previous permission was obtained, the respondents would have no locus standi for challenging the grant of the permission, because no right vested in the respondents was infringed."
(Emphasis supplied) Later, a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of JASBHAI MOTIBHAI DESAI v. ROSHAN KUMAR, HAJI BASHIR AHMED3 has held as follows:
".... .... ....
34. This Court has laid down in a number of decisions that in order to have the locus siandi to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, an applicant should ordinarily be one who has a personal or individual right in the subject-matter of the application, though in the case of some of the writs like habeas corpus or quo warranto this rule is relaxed or modified. In other words, as a general rule, infringement of some legal right or prejudice to some legal interest inhering in the petitioner is necessary to give him a locus standi in the matter, (see State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta [1951 SCC 1024 : AIR 1952 SC 12 : 1952 SCR 28] ; Calcutta Gas Co. v. State of W.B. [AIR 1962 SC 1044 : 1962 Supp (3) SCR 1]; Ram UmeshwariSuthoo v. Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa [(1967) 1 SCA 413]; GaddeVenkateswara Rao v. Government of A.P. [AIR 1966 SC 828 : (1966) 2 SCR 172]; State of Orissa v. RajasahebChandanmall [(1973) 3 SCC 3 (1976) 1 SCC 671 19 739] ; Satyanarayana Sinha Dr v. S. Lal & Co. [(1973) 2 SCC 696 : (1973) SCC (Cri) 1002] ).
.... .... ....
47. Thus, in substance, the appellant's stand is that the setting up of a rival cinema house in the town will adversely affect his monopolistic commercial interest, causing pecuniary harm and loss of business from competition. Such harm or loss is not wrongful in the eye of law, because it does not result in injury to a legal right or a legally protected interest, the business competition causing it being a lawful activity. Juridically, harm of this description is called damnum sine injuria, the term injuria being here used in its true sense of an act contrary to law. [ Salmond on Jurisprudence, 12th Edn. by Fitzgerald, p. 357, para 85] The reason why the law suffers a person knowingly to inflict harm of this description on another, without holding him accountable for it, is that such harm done to an individual is a gain to society at large."
(Emphasis supplied) Following the aforesaid judgment, a learned single Judge of this Court in P.KESHAVA ADIGA v. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE4 has held as follows:
".... .... ....
4. Aggrieved by the grant of 'no objection certificate' the petitioner has approached this Court inter alia contending that there is violation of R. 144 of the Petroleum Rules.
5. What has been granted is only 'no objection certificate' in regard to the site. The licence is to be granted by the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives in regard to the outlet. That has not taken place. I therefore do not think that it is a fit case in 4 1987 SCC OnLine Kar. 34 20 which this Court should interfere merely on the complaint of the petitioner who is attempting to protect his commercial interest. The case is fully covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of JasbhaiMotibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed, AIR 1976 SC 578 decided by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. In the said decision the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has fully approved the decision of the Supreme Court in Nagar Rice and Flour Mills v. N.T. Gowda, AIR 1971 SC 246 wherein it was held that a rice mill-owner has no locus standi to challenge under Art. 226 the setting up of a new rice-mill by another even if such setting up be in contravention of S. 8(3)(c) of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958."
(Emphasis supplied) The aforesaid order was concerning an identical circumstance of a no objection being challenged for setting up of petroleum unit. The Bench holds that no objection is no ground of challenge and all other necessities would be taken care of by the Explosive Department.
8. A coordinate bench of this Court, in identical circumstances, following the afore-quoted judgments in the case of PRAKASH v. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BAGALKOT5 holds as follows:
5Writ Petition No.16971 of 2007 decided on 04-01-2008 21 ".... .... ....
14. Having closely perused the guidelines which prescribe a distance of 300 meters between the adjoining fuel stations as also of the requirement of fuel stations on the opposite sides of the road which requires to be staggered, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that since the distance between two stations would be less than 300 meters, would be a bar to the grant of 'No Objection Certificate' cannot be sustained.
The bar is in respect of fuel filling stations situated adjacent to each other and not to stations which are on the opposite sides of a road.
15. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the fuel stations are on the opposite sides of the road. The bar insofar as the fuel stations, which are on the opposite sides of the road, is found at 4(iii) of the guidelines issued under the letter dated 27-07-1999 which reads as follows:
"Fuel filling stations should be well distributed on both sides of road so that vehicles do not have to cut across the traffic to reach a fuel filling station. The fuel filling station on opposite sides of the road should be staggered."
16. A reading of this would indicate, that there is no minimum distance between such stations on the opposite sides of the road, prescribed. The requirement that they should be staggered would only mean that they should not be immediately opposite each other. In the present case on hand, the respondent would state on oath that the stations are not immediately opposite each other. There is no serious dispute on this and it is not even the contention of the petitioner in this regard, except contending that the distance between the stations is less than 300 meters. In this view of the matter, the petition does not make out any case in the material contention that the first respondent has not applied his mind in granting a 'No Objection Certificate'. Accordingly, there is no ground made out in the writ petition. The petition is 22 dismissed. The interim order, which stood extended as on 3-12-2007, stands vacated."
(Emphasis supplied)
9. In the light of the aforesaid opinion of the 1st respondent/Deputy Commissioner based upon an inspection report, which is clearly within the parameters of what the Apex Court has held, the public safety angle is satisfied and to consider any other submission of a rival petroleum unit operator would run foul of all the aforesaid judgments.
10. In that light, the petitions do not deserve any entertainment. They being meritless, stand rejected.
Interim order if any subsisting, stands dissolved.
Consequently, pending application if any, also stands disposed.
SD/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE bkp CT:MJ