District Authority Can Reject Petrol Pump NOC For Violating CPCB Distance Norms From Schools: Kerala High Court

Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim added that since a playground is integral to the functioning of schools, the distance from the school's compound wall and not its building has to be considered while considering the minimum distance.

The petitioner had applied for a dealership with a petroleum company on a property under lease and a letter of intent was issued to him. The company got NOC for the Fire department and it submitted an application before the Additional District Magistrate under Rule 144.

NOC was refused multiple times on the grounds of public safety and opposition from neighbouring property owners, leading to the petitioner seeking the High Court's intervention for re-consideration. Once again, NOC was refused finding that the CPCB Distance norms were not adhered to and the proposed outlet poses safety threats.

During the course of the proceedings, an advocate commissioner was appointed who filed a report stating that the distance from the proposed outlet from the nearest school's compound wall is 25.15 metres and from its nearest building is 30.61 metres. At a distance of 48.21 and 38.20 metres respectively are located the nearest building and the compound wall of another school.

The petitioner argued that the District Authority, i.e., the Additional District Magistrate, was not required to follow the CPCB guidelines on minimum distance while granting NOC, the obligation was only on the Pollution Control Boards.

He also argued that even if the guidelines were to be considered, the minimum distance to be maintained can be reduced to 30 metres if additional safety measures are undertaken. It was contended that only the distance from the schools' buildings are to be considered and not their compound walls. Since there are no guidelines for maintaining distance from wells and residential buildings, he argued that consent of neighbouring property owners need not be considered for granting NOC.

The government pleader opposed these arguments and said that CPCB guidelines are applicable for setting up of new petroleum outlets, and therefore, the District Authority is bound to consider them. It was also argued that the minimum distance is to be calculated from the compound wall of schools since the play area is necessary for the students.

On the question of whether the CPCB guidelines are to be followed while considering application for NOC under Rule 144, the Court answered thus:

“The proforma of the No Objection Certificate is provided under Rule 144. The said proforma was substituted as per the Amendment dated 04.03.2024. As per the proforma available…, the District Authority has to consider, inter alia, the interest of public, specially the facilities like schools, hospitals or proximity to places of public assembly and mitigating measures, if any, is provided, and also any other matter pertinent to public safety while issuing the No Objection Certificate. The said clauses in the proforma NOC authorise the District Authority to see that the petroleum outlet maintains the required distances from schools, hospitals, and other public places, considering the public safety involved. When the CPCB has laid down the Distance Norms for petroleum outlets in its Guidelines, the District Authority is perfectly justified in considering compliance with the same while issuing NOC.”

The Court agreed with the petitioner that the consent of neighbours are not required for granting NOC. But it declined to accept the petitioner's argument that minimum distance from school's building and not compound wall was to be maintained.

“As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, the case of the school playground is a mandatory requirement for the conduct of the school. The students use the classroom as well as the playground as part of their education. The playground of the school is an integral part of the school. Hence, the school and its premises are to be considered as a single unit, and hence the distance is to be measured from the compound wall of the school and not from the building of the school,” the Court added.

The Court found that the order under challenge need not be interfered with since one of the schools is within the prohibited distance of 30 metres. It thus dismissed the writ petition.

Case No: WPC No. 7794 of 2024

Case Title: Ashwin Abraham Cherian v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 14

Counsel for the petitioner: P. Ramakrishnan, Preethi Ramakrishnan, C. Anil Kumar, Asha K. Shenoy, Pratap Abraham Varghese, Gokul Krishna

Counsel for the respondents: M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar, B. Sajeev Kumar, K. John Mathai, Joson Manavalan, Kuryan Thomas, Paulose C. Abraham, Raja Kannan, Nayanpally Ramola, Tesin Mathew, Raajesh S. Subrahmanian, Naveen T., Tony Augustin - Government Pleader

Click to Read/Download Judgment