1. Petitioners claim that they are the permanent residents of Ward Nos.9 and 10 of Chemanchery Grama Panchayat. The Writ Petition is filed challenging Ext.P1 Building Permit dated 13.08.2024 issued by the Respondent No.4 to the Respondents Nos.9 to 11 and Ext.P10 No Objection Certificate dated 24.05.2024 issued by the Respondent No.2 to the Respondent No.7 under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, for the establishment of a Petroleum Retail Outlet in their neighbourhood. They contend that the Respondent No.12 is illegally attempting to establish a Petroleum Retail Outlet as the Dealer of the Respondent No.7/Oil Marketing Company in the land taken for lease from the Respondents Nos.9 to 11, in violation of Ext.P3 Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) Guidelines and the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘KPBR’). There are several residential buildings within the prohibited distance of 30 Meters from the proposed Petroleum Retail Outlet.

2. The Respondent No.3 has filed Counter Affidavit dated 21.02.2026, the Respondent No.7 has filed Counter Affidavit dated 13.05.2026 and the Respondents Nos.9 to 12 have filed Counter Affidavit dated 25.09.2025 opposing the prayers in the Writ Petition and the Petitioners have filed Reply Affidavits dated 01.03.2026, 07.06.2026 and 19.10.2025 answering the contentions in the said three Counter Affidavits.

3. I heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Sri.Salahudin A.V.M., the learned Senior Government Pleader, Smt.Rajani K.N., for the Respondents Nos.1, 2 & 8, the learned Counsel for the Respondents Nos.3 & 4, Sri. P.V. Anoop, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.7, Sri. Paulose C. Abraham, and the learned Counsel for the Respondents Nos.9 to 12, Sri. A. Salini Lal.

4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that the Petroleum Retail Outlet shall comply with the norms provided by the CPCB as per Ext.P3 and Ext.P16. Ext.P16 provides that the State Government is to permit setting up of new petrol pumps strictly as per the siting criteria prescribed in local bye-laws (in the case of unclassified area, non-planning area, mixed zone, commercial zone) and taking into account the CPCB Guidelines dated 07.01.2020. The said CPCB Guidelines dated 07.01.2020 is Ext.P3, which provides that the Petroleum Retail Outlet shall not be located within a radial distance of 50 meters from the fill point/dispensing units/vent pipe, which is the nearest to the residential areas designated as per local laws. On satisfaction of the conditions imposed by PESO, the distance is 30 meters. In such case, where there is no designated residential areas, the siting criteria prescribed in local bye-laws is to be followed in view of Ext.P16. The local laws referred to in Ext.P16 is the KPBR as the area comes within the local limits of a Panchayat. The ‘building’ defined under Rule 2(1)(n) of KPBR includes tank constructed or fixed for storage of chemicals in any form. The Petroleum Retail Outlet comes under Group I of Rule 25 of KPBR. In such case, in view of Rule 26, the minimum distance on all sides should be 7.5 meters. The Respondent Nos.7 & 12 have constructed the storage tank not maintaining 7.5 meters distance from the plot boundary. Learned Counsel relied on Ext.P13 Judgment of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) Southern Zone, Chennai, in O.A.No.188/2024 (SZ), in which it is held that the absence of categorical designation of residential area as per local laws does not automatically imply satisfaction of siting criteria; that if the spirit of the CPCB Guidelines is taken into account, the overwhelming inference is to protect residents by providing safety distance from the residential areas; that in the absence of designated residential area as per local laws, the existence of several houses near the proposed site could be interpreted as a de facto residential area; and that if the houses are used primarily as residences, it would be more appropriate to consider the area a residential one even though the same is not officially designated. Learned Counsel invited my attention to Ext.P17 Order of PESO which suspended the prior approval of another Petroleum Retail Outlet relying on Ext.P13 Judgment of the NGT. The learned Counsel further pointed out Ext.P14 Order of another Panchayat cancelling the Building Permit of a Petroleum Retail Outlet relying on Ext.P13 Judgment of the NGT. The learned Counsel contended that the records would clearly reveal that the area in which the Petroleum Retail Outlet is sought to be established is a thickly populated residential area in which a large number of drinking water wells are situated. The learned Counsel relied on the decision of this Court in Manoj Kumar v. State of Kerala and Others [2026:KER:9023] in which the Division Bench of this Court held that the predominant features and characteristics of the surroundings would be a relevant factor to be taken into consideration in designating the area as residential or otherwise. The learned Counsel contended that the Division Bench of this Court made such an observation in a matter in which the issue considered was whether the Petroleum Retail Outlet permitted to operate falls within a residential area as designated under the local laws. Learned Counsel further contended that, as per Clause A(1) of Ext.P3 CPCB Guidelines, petrol pumps located in areas with groundwater table less than 04 metres shall have secondary containment by way of double-walled tanks or concrete protection walls so as to minimise groundwater and soil contamination. Admittedly, Respondents Nos.7 and 12 have constructed the storage tank with single brick walls in violation of this mandatory provision. The learned Counsel concluded his arguments praying to set aside Ext.P1 Building Permit and Ext.P10 NOC and further directing the Respondent Nos.1 to 6 to restrain the operation of the Petroleum Retail Outlet by the Respondent Nos.7 and 12.

5. Learned Counsel for the Respondents No.3 and 4 advanced arguments with reference to the contentions raised in the Counter Affidavit. Learned Counsel invited my attention to the specific statement in the Counter Affidavit of the Respondent No.3 that the distance of 7.5 metres have been maintained from all sides to the filling station. Learned Counsel contended that in the case of fuel filling stations under Group I coming under Rule 25 of the KPBR, it is Rule 47 which is applicable to it. Rule 47 provides that the location and or construction of fuel tank and vent-pipe shall be governed by the provisions of the Petroleum Rules, 2002; that a clear space of not less than 7.5 meters shall be provided all around the retail dispensing units of fuel filling station; and that the kiosk or sales office shall have a minimum open space of 1 meter from the plot boundaries other than that abutting the street. In the case on hand, the Respondent Nos.7 and 12 have satisfied the siting criteria as per the said Rule 47 and also the Petroleum Rules, 2002. The learned Counsel cited the Division Bench decision of this Court in Town Planner, Kannur LSGD Planning v. T.M.Biju [2026 (2) KHC 93] in which it is held that the Petroleum Act, 1934, and the Petroleum Rules, 2002, override the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2019, and KPBR in view of the exemption granted under Rule 47(1) of those Rules in the case of construction of fuel tanks at petrol filling stations. Learned Counsel concluded his arguments by submitting that there is nothing to interfere with Ext.P1.

6. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.7 contended that the Respondent No.7 obtained Ext.R7(a) Access Permission from the National Highways Authority of India on 08.02.2024, Ext.R7(b) No Objection Certificate from the District Authority on 24.05.2024, Ext.R7(c) Building Permit from the Panchayat on 13.08.2024, Ext.R7(d) Prior Approval from PESO on 17.03.2025 and Ext.R7(f) Explosive Licence on 30.06.2025. Ext.R1(g) would reveal that the Respondent No.12 lifted stock from the Respondent 7 on 30.06.2025 itself. The present Writ Petition is filed long after the commission of the Petroleum Retail Outlet by filing the Writ Petition on 22.09.2025, even though they claim that they have been residing in the immediate vicinity of the site. The subject Petroleum Retail Outlet has been running without giving any room for complaint and without causing any nuisance to anybody. It is well settled by the decisions of this Court in Xxx v. Yyy [2024 KHC 1009], Ashwin Abraham Cherian v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Others [2025:KER:82926] and Shijimon K.J. v. Union of India and Others [2026:KER:12702] that it is not the existence of residences but the existences of the residential area designated as per the local laws which is relevant for considering the establishment of the Petroleum Retail Outlet. Learned Counsel invited my attention to Ext.R7(e) Certificate issued by the Respondent No.3/Grama Panchayat that there is no designated residential area as per local laws within a distance of 50 meters from the edge of the boundary of the site proposed for the establishment of the Petroleum Retail Outlet. Learned Counsel further contended that the condition to construct double-walled water tanks or concrete protection walls is required only when the groundwater level is less than 4 metres. In this case, there is no document to show that the groundwater level is less than 4 meters. Learned Counsel invited my attention to the averments in the Writ Petition to substantiate the point that the Petitioners are not having any definite case with respect to the violation of the siting criteria. It is not clear even from the averments in the Writ Petition that the siting criteria is referred to with reference to the dispensing unit or the kiosk. Learned Counsel further contended that Ext.P13 Judgment of the NGT is not binding on this Court. It is for this Court to consider the matter irrespective of Ext.P13 Judgment of the NGT. Learned Counsel concluded his arguments praying to dismiss the Writ Petition.

7. Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.9 to 12 advanced arguments in support of the contentions raised by the Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 and 7. Learned Counsel further contended that Ext.P16 is only a recommendation made by the CPCB. It could not override Ext.P3 CPCB Guidelines. Learned Counsel cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Deepak Sharma [2026 KHC 7148] and contended that there could not be any quarrel with respect to the question whether the existence of residences or designated residential area which is relevant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision has held that a single residence and a residential colony in the vicinity of the proposed site will not itself violate the distance rule, since it is not in a designated residential area as per local laws. Learned Counsel contended that in Manoj Kumar (supra), the Division Bench has only directed the Government to consider whether the area is to be designated as a residential area or not and it has no application to the case on hand. Learned Counsel further contended that Ext.R12(g) would reveal that there is no water table within 4 meters in order to attract Clause A(1) of Ext.P3. Learned Counsel concluded her arguments by praying to dismiss the Writ Petition.

8. I have considered the rival contentions.

9. It is settled by the Division Bench decision of this Court in T.M. Biju (supra) that the Petroleum Act, 1934, and the Petroleum Rules, 2002, override the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2019, and KPBR in view of the exemption granted under 47(1) of those Rules. The distance from the plot boundary to be maintained under Rule 26 and Rule 47 of the KPBR is one and the same, namely, 7.5 meters. It is Rule 47 of the KPBR which is applicable to the fuel filling stations under Group I. Even assuming that it is Rule 26 which is applicable, even then the distance is one and the same. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for Respondent No.7, there is no specific averment in the Writ Petition that the storage tank of the Petroleum Retail Outlet is constructed violating the distance of 7.5 meters from the plot boundary. It is not clear from the averments in the Writ Petition as to whether they are made with reference to the storage tank or the kiosk of the Petroleum Retail Outlet. There is specific statement in the Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondent No.3/Panchayat that the storage tank is constructed maintaining the distance of 7.5 meters as required under Rule 47 of the KPBR. Hence, the contention of the Petitioners that the storage tank is constructed in violation of the KPBR is unsustainable.

10. Clause A(1) of Ext.P3 requiring secondary containment by way of double-walled tanks or concrete protection walls so as to minimise groundwater and soil contamination is required only if the groundwater level is less than 4 meters. There is nothing on record to show that the groundwater table is less than 4 meters. On the other hand, Ext.R12(g) would reveal that there is no groundwater table within 4 meters as the depth of the upper soil is 12 meters and the depth of the tube well permitted is 100 meters.

11. It is true that in Ext.P13 Judgment of the NGT, it is held that the absence of categorical designation of residential area as per local laws does not automatically imply satisfaction of siting criteria; that in the absence of designated residential area as per local laws, the existence of several houses near the proposed site could be interpreted as a de facto residential area; and that if the houses are used primarily as residences, it would be more appropriate to consider the area a residential one even though the same is not officially designated. PESO as well as the Panchayat have suspended/cancelled permission on the basis of Ext.P13 Judgment. But in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Sharma (supra) that a single residence and a residential colony in the vicinity do not by itself violate the distance rules since it is not a designated area as per local laws, the stand taken by the NGT in Ext.P13 Judgment is not correct. In Manoj Kumar (supra), this Court has not treated a residential area for the purpose of the distance rule with respect to Petroleum Retail Outlet considering its predominant features and characteristics of the surroundings. This Court has only directed the Government to consider the designation of the area as residential or otherwise, considering the predominant features and characteristics of the surroundings. The said decision would also indicate that it is the designated residential area which is relevant for considering the distance rule for the establishment of the Petroleum Retail Outlet. Ext.P16 is only an Office Memorandum making certain recommendations by the CPCB. It only says the siting criteria prescribed in the local laws has to be considered in case of unclassified areas, non-planning areas, mixed zone and commercial zone. Here, the area is not a classified area, planning area or mixed zone or commercial zone. In such case, the siting criteria as per the KPBR is to be considered. Even going by Rule 47 of the KPBR, the distance is 7.5 metres and the same has been complied with by the Respondent Nos.7 and 12 for the establishment of the Petroleum Retail Outlet.

12. Finally, it is clear from the records produced by the Respondent No.7 that the Petroleum Retail Outlet started functioning with effect from 30.06.2025. But the Writ Petition is seen filed on 22.09.2025. It could not be said that the Petitioners who had been residing in the vicinity were not aware of the constructions made by the Respondent Nos.7 and 12 on the site. The impugned Ext.P1 Building Permit and P10 No Objection Certificate are dated 13.08.2024 and 24.05.2024. The Petitioners did not file the Writ Petition when the Respondent Nos.7 and 12 started establishing the Petroleum Retail Outlet making huge investments. On this ground also, the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioners would fail.

13. The Petitioners have produced Ext.P10 NOC and the speaking order passed by the Respondent No.2 dated 24.05.2024 is produced as Ext.R12(h). It would reveal that Respondent No.2 has issued NOC after complying with all statutory formalities.

14. In the result, this Writ Petition fails. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.