Facts of the Case

This is a batch judgment of the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam disposing of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 11517 of 2020 together with a large number of connected writ petitions. It is a matter of environmental/licensing law concerning the siting of retail petroleum outlets and pollution-control clearances; GST is not at issue anywhere in this judgment. The lead petitioners, Mohammed Mehthar and Subeesh Babu, along with petitioners in the connected cases, were variously existing or prospective owners/operators of retail petroleum outlets, and the respondents included the District Collector, the Central and Kerala State Pollution Control Boards (CPCB/KSPCB), the Public Works Department, the State of Kerala, and Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

The common question in all the petitions concerned the applicability of circulars issued by the KSPCB prescribing siting restrictions — particularly minimum distance requirements from residential buildings — for establishing retail petroleum outlets, pursuant to guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) following directions of the National Green Tribunal (NGT). Some petitioners challenged the KSPCB circulars themselves; others sought directions to the KSPCB/District authorities to grant No Objection Certificates (NOC) or consent to establish outlets; and others sought to quash NOCs or consents already granted to third parties. While these petitions were pending, the NGT (South Zone) had made it mandatory to obtain "consent to establish" and "consent to operate" from the CPCB/SPCB, but the Supreme Court, in Indian Oil Corporation v. V.B.R. Menon & Ors. [(2023) SCC OnLine SC 257], decided on 14.03.2023, set aside that mandatory consent requirement, holding that retail petroleum outlets fall in the "Green Category" and are outside the consent-management regime, and that authorities need only ensure strict compliance with the CPCB's Office Memorandum dated 07.01.2020. Following that ruling, the KSPCB itself clarified that the distance-from-individual-residence requirement in its own circular dated 18.08.2020 could no longer be insisted upon.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the KSPCB's siting circulars, including the distance criteria measured from individual residential buildings, could still be enforced against applicants for retail petroleum outlet NOCs/consents.
  2. Whether "consent to establish" and "consent to operate" from the CPCB/SPCB remained a mandatory precondition for setting up or operating a retail petroleum outlet, in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Indian Oil Corporation v. V.B.R. Menon.
  3. How each of the individually clubbed writ petitions (challenging or seeking NOCs, consents, and related orders) should be disposed of consistent with that ruling.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • In the petitions filed by existing/prospective outlet owners: that NOCs and consents had been wrongly withheld or delayed, or wrongly granted to rival applicants, in violation of the applicable siting circulars and government orders/CPCB memoranda.
  • In the petitions filed by objecting residents/neighbours: that outlets were being permitted in violation of the minimum-distance and siting norms prescribed by the CPCB/KSPCB circulars, and NOCs granted to outlet owners ought to be quashed or reconsidered.
  • Various petitioners sought directions to authorities to act on pending applications or appeals concerning NOC/consent within a time frame.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The authorities and outlet operators relied on the evolving regulatory position — including the CPCB guidelines dated 07.01.2020, subsequent circulars, and eventually the Supreme Court's ruling in Indian Oil Corporation v. V.B.R. Menon — to contend that mandatory "consent to establish/operate" and rigid individual-residence distance criteria were no longer applicable.
  • It was submitted that once the Supreme Court had set aside the NGT's mandatory consent regime and clarified that only the CPCB's siting guidelines needed to be followed, most of the specific reliefs sought by petitioners (quashing circulars, mandatory distance enforcement, etc.) could not survive.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court held that, in view of the Supreme Court's judgment in Indian Oil Corporation v. V.B.R. Menon & Ors., none of the KSPCB circulars imposing siting/distance requirements beyond the CPCB's own guidelines could any longer be insisted upon, and it was no longer necessary to individually adjudicate all the contentions raised across the batch.
  • Authorities were directed to consider pending applications for NOC/consent to establish afresh, in light of the Supreme Court's ruling and the CPCB guidelines dated 07.01.2020, rather than the superseded KSPCB distance circulars.
  • Each of the connected writ petitions was disposed of individually on this common basis — in most cases directing the concerned respondent authority to reconsider the relevant application, appeal, or NOC issue afresh, and clarifying that the specific mandamus originally prayed for (e.g., outright quashing or blanket direction) could not be granted as such.
  • The judgment does not engage with any GST question; it is entirely an environmental-clearance/licensing dispute governed by CPCB/NGT/Pollution Control Board law and the Supreme Court's ruling on the consent regime for petroleum outlets.

Important Clarification

This judgment illustrates how a batch of pending petitions on a regulatory question can be resolved largely by reference to an intervening Supreme Court ruling that changes the underlying regulatory position, without the High Court needing to independently decide each individual contention. It has no bearing on GST law; it addresses only the siting and consent regime for retail petroleum outlets under the Air/Water Pollution Control framework as clarified by the Supreme Court.

Sections Involved

  • Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
  • Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
  • National Green Tribunal Act, 2010
  • CPCB Office Memorandum dated 07.01.2020 (Siting Guidelines for retail petroleum outlets)

Decision – In Favour of

The writ petitions were disposed of largely in terms directing the authorities to reconsider pending NOC/consent applications in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Indian Oil Corporation v. V.B.R. Menon, rather than being decided outright in favour of either side; the outcome for each individual petitioner depended on the specific relief sought, but none of the KSPCB's stricter distance-based siting circulars could be enforced any further.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
  • Case No.: WP(C) No. 11517 of 2020, along with WP(C) No. 12302 of 2020 and other connected cases
  • Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.R. Ravi
  • Date of Judgment: 26 July 2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.