WP/30510/2025 of A.NIVAS Vs THE GENERAL MANAGER

W.P. No.30510 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01.04.2026 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI W.P. No.30510 of 2025 and W.M.P. No.10412 of 2026 A.Nivas ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The General Manager (Retail & Sales) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Oil Bhavan, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. 2. The Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Marketing Division, Trichy Divisional Office, III Floor, B-35, Sastri Road, Thillai Nagar, Trichy-620 018. 3. The Divisional Retail Head Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Marketing Division, Trichy Divisional Office, III Floor, B-35, Sastri Road, Thillai Nagar, Trichy, -620 018. 4. The Joint Chef Controller of Explosives Petroleum and Explosives, Safety Organisation (PESO), A & D Wing, Block – 8, 2nd Floor, Sastri Bhavan No.26, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006. 5. The Addl. District Magistrate, District Revenue Officer, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore ..Respondent(s) 1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.30510 of 2025 Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to Aw ard Dealership in petitioner favour for establishing the Retail Outlet -MS/HSD B Site Kisan Seva Kendra Dealership in the land comprised in Survey No.16/1 Kandarakottai Village, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District-607 205 based on the No Objection Certificate by the Executive Engineer, Water Resour ce Organisation, Vellaru, Irrigation Division, Vridhachalam, within the time fixed by this Honble Court For Petitioner : Mr.K. Premkumar For Respondents : Mr.Mohammed Fayaz Ali for R1 to R3 Mr.T. Srikrishna Bhagavan for R4 Mr.M. Rajendiran Addl. Govt. Pleader for R5 ORDER This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Ma ndamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to award dealership in favour of the petitioner for establishing a Retail Outlet (MS/HSD ‘B’ Site Kisan Seva Kendra) at Survey No.16/1, Kandarakottai Village, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District, based on the No Objection Certificate issued by the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was selected by the 2nd respondent pursuant to an advertisement issued in the year 2014 for allotment of 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.30510 of 2025 a petroleum retail outlet dealership. A Letter of Intent was issued on 05.04.2018 in favour of the petitioner. It is further stated that subsequently, the petitioner’s father purchased the subject land on 07.10.2022 and complied with all stat utory requirements. 3. It is further stated that the District Collector, Cuddalore, issued No Objection Certificate on 28.05.2021 under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002. Further, the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, by communication dated 02.07.2024, certified that the canal (Ootru Vaikkal) is situated at a distance of 63 meters from the proposed site and raised no objection. 4. However, it is the grievance of the petitioner that the proposal forwarded to the 4 th respondent (PESO) was rejected on the ground that a canal is situated within the prohibitory distance (closed to 30 meters) f rom the site, based on the sketch furnished by the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioner, he complied with all statutory requirements and has been awaiting for issuance of award of dealership, that too, when the authorities have categorically certified that the canal is situated at a distance of 63 meters, contrary to the said certification, the 2 nd respondent has prepared a sketch showing the canal within 30 meters. Further it is stated that without any supporting material, the said sketch was forwarded to the 4 th respondent, 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.30510 of 2025 leading to rejection of approval. In the above circumstances, the pe titioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition seeking appropriate directions. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per CPCB guidelines dated 16.08.2021, the minimum prohibitory distance from water body is 50 meters, whereas the said canal is situated at a dista nce of 63 meters from the proposed site, which can be evidenced from the report date d 02.07.2024 issued by the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department. It is the strong argument of the petitioner counsel that the 2 nd respondent has prepared a sketch showing the canal within 30 meters without any suppor ting material and forwarded the same to the 4 th respondent, based on which, the proposal was rejected. Hence, the sketch prepared by the 2 nd respondent is arbitrary and illegal and thus the action of the 4 th respondent in rejecting the approval submitted by the petitioner is unsustainable. On the aforesaid score, he prayed that the impugned action may be set aside and suitable dire ctions be issued. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted his arguments based on the counter affidavit and argued that the petroleum retail outlet dealership cannot be awarded in the absence of mandatory statutory clearances. He vehemently argued that only after conducting fiel d inspection, 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.30510 of 2025 it is found that the canal ( Ootru Vaikkal) is situated withi n the prohibitory distance of 30 meters and therefore, the norms prescribed by the CPC B has not been satisfied for granting approval. Therefore, the rejection of the proposal is justifiable and in compliance with statutory requirements. 7. Learned counsel for the 4 th respondent submityrf that the proposal was rejected strictly in accordance with CPCB guidelines dated 16.08.2021 and applicable statutory provisions. Reiterating the averments of the counte r affidavit, he submitted that as per the drawings and sketch submitt ed, the canal is situated within 11 meters from the proposed site, which violates the minimum distance requirement of 50 meters. In view of the above, the rejec tion order, dated 05.12.2024 passed by the 4 th respondent is in accordance with law and interference by this Court is unwarranted. 8. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was selected pursuant to the Advertisement published in the year 2014 and a Letter of Intent was issued on 05.04.2018. It is also undisputed that the District Collector has granted N o Objection Certificate under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002. 10. The core issue that arises for consideration is with regard to the distance of the canal from the proposed site. 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.30510 of 2025 11. On the one hand, the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, by communication dated 02.07.2024, has categorically stated t hat the canal is situated at a distance of 63 meters from the propose d site, which satisfies the CPCB guidelines. 12. On the other hand, the 2 nd respondent has prepared a sketch indicating that the canal is situated within 30 meters, based on which the proposal was rejected by the 4th respondent. 13. In the considered view of this Court, the report of the competent authority, namely the Executive Engineer, cannot be lightly disregarded. At the same time, if the 2 nd respondent has any material to substantiate its stand, the same must be placed on record in a transparent manner. 14. In the case on hand, the sketch prepared by the 2nd respondent, which forms the basis for rejection, does not appear to be supported by any material and is contrary to the official certification issued by the Water Resources Department. 15. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the matter requires reconsideration by the 2 nd respondent by conducting a proper measurement of the site in a fair and transparent manner. 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.30510 of 2025 16. Accordingly, the impugned sketch prepared by the 2 nd respondent is set aside and the matter is remanded to the 2 nd respondent for fresh consideration. 17. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court issues the following directions :- i) The 2 nd respondent is directed to conduct a physical inspection and measurement of the subject property in the presence of the petitioner, iii) The petitioner shall place all relevant materials before the 2nd respondent in support of his contention. iii) While preparing a fresh sketch, the 2 nd respondent shall scrutinize and consider the report of the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, in accordance with law and thereafter forward the same to the 4 th respondent for appropriate consideration. iv) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 18. The writ petition stands allowed on the above terms. No costs. 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.30510 of 2025 Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 01.04.2026 Index : Yes / No Speaking Order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation Case : Yes / No vsi2 To 1. The General Manager (Retail & Sales) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Oil Bhavan, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034 2. The Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Marketing Division, Trichy Divisional Office, III Floor, B-35, Sastri Road, Thillai Nagar, Trichy-620 018 3. The Divisional Retail Head Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Marketing Division, Trichy Divisional Office, III Floor, B-35, Sastri Road, Thillai Nagar, Trichy, -620 018 4. The Joint Chef Controller of Explosives Petroleum And Explosives, Safety Organisation (PESO), A & D Bhavan No.26, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006 5. The Addl. District Magistrate, District Revenue Officer, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore 8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.30510 of 2025 M. DHANDAPANI, J. vsi2 W.P. No.30510 of 2025 and W.M.P. No.10412 of 2026 01.04.2026 9/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis