1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P8 order of the 2nd respondent by which NOC under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, is granted in favour of the 3rd respondent - oil company in order to enable the respondents 5 and 6 to start a petroleum outlet. Petitioner claims that he is the neighbour of the property in which the petroleum outlet is proposed to be started, which belongs to respondent No.5.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that Ext.P8 order is in violation of Ext.P9 Guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board, which provides that there shall not be any lakes, ponds, streams, rivers, wetlands, canals and creeks, as per revenue records, that are situated within the distance of 50 meters from the proposed site. In order to prove the existence of canals within the prohibited distance of 50 meters, the petitioner has taken out a commission, and the Advocate Commissioner has filed a Report dated 01.12.2025 in this matter. The Commissioner has reported that a water source lies within a distance of 3.3 meters from the partly dug/constructed fuel storage tank and 12.25 meters from the proposed point marked for the dispensing unit of the petroleum outlet.

3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Gisa Susan Thomas, is that the said two water bodies, situated on the western and eastern sides of the proposed site, are recorded in the revenue records. The learned counsel invited my attention to Ext.P14 title deed of the respondent No. 5, contending that the existence of the canal is specifically stated therein. The learned Counsel contended that originally the entire property belonging to the 5th respondent was wetland, and the 5th respondent was having an extent of 4.45 Ares in survey No.11/2 and 6.83 Ares in survey No.11/2-1-1. As per the order issued under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, an extent of 3.85 Ares in survey No.11/2 and 6.25 Ares in survey No.11/2-1-1 was ordered to be converted as dry land and the balance extent of 0.60 Ares in survey No.11/2 and 0.58 Ares in survey No.11/2-1-1 was retained as ‘Nilam.’ The said extent retained as ‘Nilam’ is the water body, which is situated on either side of the proposed site. The learned Counsel invited my attention to the Thandaper Account with respect to the said remaining extent, which is produced as a part of Ext.P16 document, in which it is stated that the nature of the property is paddy land.

4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent No.3, Sri. M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar, and the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.5 and 6, Sri. Salini Lal, contended that the water channel situated on the western and eastern sides of the proposed site are not recorded in the revenue records. The aforesaid remaining property after conversion is recorded only as paddy land in the revenue records and not as wetland. Ext.P9 Guidelines require the existence of wetland or canals within the prohibited distance of 50 meters from the proposed site to deny NOC for the petroleum outlet. There is no record before this Court to show that there is a canal within the prohibited distance of 50 meters to interfere with the Ext.P8 order.

5. In view of the contention raised by the petitioner, this Court on 18.12.2025 specifically directed the Government Pleader to get instruction from the respondents 1 and 2 as to the status of the canal found in the Commission Report with reference to the records available with the government, including the revenue records. The learned Government Pleader, Sri. Tony Augustine, on instructions, submitted that there is no Canal recorded in the revenue records within the prohibited distance of 50 meters from the proposed petroleum outlet.

6. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6, only if there is a canal or wetland recorded in the revenue records within the prohibited distance of 50 meters can the NOC be rejected by the District Authority. Even in the ‘Thandaper’ Accounts produced by the petitioner, the remaining extent after conversion, having 0.60 Ares and 0.58 Ares retained in survey Nos.11/2 and 11/2-1-1 is recorded only as paddy land and not as wetland. Paddy land and wetland are different. The existence of wetland within the prohibited distance alone is relevant to deny NOC as per Ext.P9 Guidelines.

7. The existence of two canals on the western and eastern sides of the proposed property is proved by the Commissioner Report, but that alone is not sufficient to interfere with Ext.P8. The said canals have to be recorded in the revenue records. There is nothing on record to prove that those canals are recorded in the revenue records. The learned Government Pleader also confirmed that there are no canals recorded in the revenue records within the prohibited distance of 50 meters from the proposed site.

8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that out of that, 2.6 Ares is retained as a canal for irrigation purposes in the Data Bank in Re-survey no.11/2-1. It is not clear whether the said 2.6 Ares comes within the prohibited distance. Even if the said 2.6 Ares of land comes within the prohibited distance of 50 meters, merely because the said land is shown as canal in the LLMC Report is not sufficient. It has to be recorded in the revenue records to deny the NOC.

9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 13 proceedings under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act for illegal conversion is pending against the respondent No.5. I make it clear that I have not considered anything with respect to the legality of those proceedings in this Writ Petition.

10. I do not find any ground or reason to interfere with Ext.P8 Order.

                  Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed.