1. The Petitioners have filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P14 NOC granted by the Respondent No.4/District Authority in favour of the Respondent No.11/Oil Marketing Company in order to enable the Respondent No.15 to start a petroleum retail outlet on the premises near the residences of the Petitioners.

2. The Respondents Nos.3, 11 and 15 have filed separate Counter Affidavits opposing the prayers in the Writ Petition.

3. I heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Sri.K.M.Jamaludheen, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.10, Sri.E.K.Nandakumar instructed by Adv. Sri. M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar, Counsel for the Respondent No.15, Sri. A. Salini Lal, learned Government Pleader, Sri. Rafeek V.K., for the Respondents/State Authorities and Deputy Solicitor General, Smt.O.M. Shalina, for the Respondents/Central Government Authorities.

4. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that the boundary of the school in the vicinity is situated within the prohibited distance of 30 meters from the dispensing unit of the proposed petroleum outlet. Learned Counsel relied on Ext.P4 Report of the Sub Collector in this regard, which would show that the distance from the dispensing unit to the school is only 26.5 metres. The learned Counsel further contended that there was Ext.P12 Adverse Report from the Respondent No.10/Commissioner of Police and Ext.P14 NOC was given without considering it.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.11 and the Counsel for the Respondent No.15 submitted that the location of the Dispensing Unit is changed subsequent to the issuance of Ext.P14 NOC and Ext.R11(c)/R15(c) Revised Plan is obtained and the same is approved by PESO. As per the Revised Plan, the distance from the Dispensing Unit to the school boundary is more than 30 meters. The Distance Rule is not a matter to be considered by the District Authority as per Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002. There is no need to set aside the NOC since the school boundary is situated beyond the prohibited distance of 30 metres from the dispensing unit of the petroleum outlet. It is well settled that the local residents have no right to be heard in the NOC proceedings and they have no challenge to the establishment of the petroleum retail outlet.

6. I have considered the contentions.

7. As per the original location of the dispensing unit, it is situated within the prohibited distance of 30 meters from the nearby school boundary. Ext.P14 NOC was granted on the basis of a Plan produced by the Respondent No.11 showing the said location. It is subsequent to the issuance of the NOC, the Respondent No.11 changed the location of the dispensing unit as per Ext.R11(c) Plan. In such case, it is for the Respondent No.4 to consider the revised plan for granting NOC. The contention of the Respondents Nos.11 and 15 that the District Authority has no right to consider the distance norms specified in Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) Guidelines is unsustainable in view of the decision of this Court in Ashwin Abraham Cherian v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. [2026 (1) KHC 172], in which it is held that Clauses in the Proforma NOC under Rule 144 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 and that 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. Respondent No.10 has objected to the establishment of the petroleum retail outlet on the ground of road safety. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.11 is that the objection of the Respondent No.10 is based on IRC Guidelines and the objection of the Respondent No.10 is not relevant and that the Respondent No.4 has considered the question of road safety in Ext.P14. I am unable to accept the said contention. IRC Guidelines are not referred in Ext.P12 Report of the Respondent No.10. As per the Proforma NOC under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, the District Authority is bound to consider the comments of the Police Department before granting NOC. Ext.P12 Report is not seen considered in Ext.P14 Order granting NOC. Of course, if the District Authority accepts the comments of the authorities mentioned in the Proforma NOC, there is no need to discuss the comments in the Order disposing the Application for NOC. If the District Authority takes a view different from the comments of the authorities mentioned in the Proforma NOC, the District Authority has to consider the comments of such authorities.

8. Hence, Ext.P14 Order is liable to be set aside on the aforesaid two grounds. The Respondent No.4 has to reconsider the Application for NOC submitted by the Respondent No.11 with reference to the Revised Plan submitted by the Respondent No.11 and the Report of the Respondent No.10 after hearing the Petitioners and the Respondents Nos.11 and 15.

9. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.15 contended that the Petitioners shall not be given the opportunity of hearing while reconsidering the Application for NOC, since it is well settled that the local residents have no right to object to the establishment of a petroleum outlet. I am unable to accept this contention also. It is well settled that consent of local residents is not required for granting NOC for a petroleum outlet; that objection of the local residents on the ground of existence of their residence is not relevant; and that NOC shall not be denied on the mere objection of the local residents. It does not mean that the local residents have no right to point out the unsuitability of the site on legal grounds. In this case also, the Petitioners, who are local residents, could substantiate the violation of distance norms and non-consideration of the Report of Respondent No.10, which was to be considered before granting NOC under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules. At the instance of the Petitioners, this Court found that the Ext.P14 Order is liable to be set aside for reconsideration of the Application for NOC. In such case, the Petitioners have every right of hearing in the proceedings for reconsideration of the Application for NOC.

10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed setting aside Ext.P14 Order and directing the Respondent No.4 to reconsider the Application for NOC for the limited purpose of considering the Revised Plan of the Respondent No.11 with reference to the distance from the nearby school boundary and considering Ext.P12 Report of the Respondent No.10, after hearing the Petitioners and the Respondents Nos.11 and 15. The Respondent No.4 is directed to dispose of the Application for NOC within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.