IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2009 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 16473 of 2007(J) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- S.N.ABDUL KAREEM, S/O T.P.ABDULLA HAJEE, AGED 50 YEARS, SHAHINA MANZIL, THEKKEPURAM, PADANNA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, SHASTRI BHAWAN, DR.RAJENDRA PRASAD MARG, NEW DELHI-110001. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695001. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KASARGODE. 4. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE, KASARGODE. 5. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, CALICUT. 6. SMT.V.NOORJA, AGED 30 YEARS, W/O M.K.C.KUNJU MOIDEEN KUTTY, RESIDING AT THEKKEPPURAM, PADANNA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.PADANNA. 7. K.DEVADAS, AGED 50 YEARS, LICENCEE OF NEW INDIA OIL OUTLET, PADANNA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.PADANNA. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST. SG. FOR R1 SRI.A.DINESH RAO FOR R6 & 7 SRI. A.M.SHAFEEQUE SC FOR R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 16473/2007 J APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1. COPY OF THE NOC DT. 26/5/07 BY R4 TO R7 AND COVERING LETTER. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE REPORT DT. 23/5/2007 SUBMITTED BY ADV. COMMISIONER IN O.S NO. 96/2007. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL. / TRUE COPY / tga P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 16473 OF 2007 ......................................................................... Dated this the 2nd April , 2009 J U D G M E N T Ext. P1 NOC granted by the 4th respondent, permitting the 6th respondent to set up a retail outlet of petroleum products of Indian Oil Corporation in the concerned premises is under challenge, referring to the mandate stipulated in Rules 11 and 168 of the Petroleum Rules 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). 2. The specific case of the petitioner is that his dwelling house is situated very near to the premises where the petrol pump is proposed to be started by the 6th respondent; that the kitchen of the petitioner is situated within 90 metres from the storage tank being provided in the petrol pump and hence that it will come within the prohibited distance as stipulated in Rule 168 of the Rules. 3. The learned counsel for the 6th respondent, referring to the relevant provisions of law, asserts that the provisions W.P.(C) No. 16473 OF 2007 2 extracted by the petitioner in Ground 'C' will be attracted only in connection with the refining, cracking, reforming and such other activities of petroleum, specifically dealt with under Chapter VIII of the Petroleum Rules 2002 -'REFINING OF PETROLEUM' and that setting up a retail outlet of petroleum products does not involve any 'refining' of petroleum and as such the idea and understanding of the petitioner with regard to the scope and application of Rule 168 is thoroughly wrong and misconceived. With regard to Rule 11 of the very same Rules, it only says that no person shall smoke and no matches, fires, lights or articles or substances capable of causing ignition of petroleum shall be allowed at any time in proximity to a place where petroleum is refined, stored or handled or in a vehicle's carriage or vessel in which petroleum is transported. In other words, it only speaks about the general restrictions and no distance rule, as contemplated under Rule 168, is provided therein. As such this rule is also not applicable to the case in hand. The learned counsel for the 6th respondent further submits that the outlet has already started functioning. The learned counsel for the W.P.(C) No. 16473 OF 2007 3 petitioner also concedes the factual position, as above. Considering the above facts and figures, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The challenge raised against Ext.P1 fails and the Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk