(Prayer: Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 1 st to 5th Respondents to take immediate actions in accordance with law, including closure, to stop the commissioning and operation of a New Petroleum Retail Outlet by the 6th and 7th Respondents on Edamalaipatti Main Road at Survey No. 130/21, Edamalaipatti Pudur , Tiruchirappalli District - 620012 in gross violations of the mandatory Siting Criteria prescribed by the Central Pollution Control Board , State Highways Department and several binding judicial decisions/ directions of this Honble Court and Honble Apex Court in similar cases in the recent past in the Tiruchirappalli Area itself.

Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the Final Explosive Licence No.P/SC/TN/14/10470 (P550897) dated 31.10.2023 issued by the first respondent to the fifth respondent being violative of the Siting Criteria prescribed for new Petroleum Retail Outlets by the Central Pollution Control Board and based on a forged / fabricated copy of the No Objection Certificate to operate a New Petroleum Retail Outlet on Edamalaipatti Pudur Main Road at Town Survey No.22, Old Survey No.158-21 AP, Block No.36, Ward No.004, (A.L), Pirattiyur East Village, Edamalaipatti Pudur Main Road, Trichy West Taluk, Triuchirappallli District-620 009 and quash the Final Explosive Licence dated 31.10.2023.)

Common Order:

M. Jothiraman, J.

1. These two writ petitions have been filed by one Mr.S.Paneerselvam, who is an Advocate practising in Trichy District in public interest. Writ petition in WP.(MD)No.19819 of 2025 has been filed seeking a direction to the official respondents to take to take immediate actions in accordance with law, including closure, to stop the commissioning and operation of a New Petroleum Retail Outlet by the respondents 6 & 7. Writ petition in WP.(MD)No.22511 of 2025 has been filed challenging the Final Explosive Licence dated 31.10.2023 issued by the first respondent to the fifth respondent being violative of the Siting Criteria prescribed for new Petroleum Retail Outlets by the Central Pollution Control Board and based on a forged / fabricated copy of the No Objection Certificate to operate a New Petroleum Retail Outlet on Edamalaipatti Pudur Main Road at Town Survey No.22, Old Survey No.158-21 AP, Block No.36, Ward No.004, (A.L), Pirattiyur East Village, Edamalaipatti Pudur Main Road, Trichy West Taluk, Triuchirappallli District-620 009. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their rank in WP.(MD)No.22511 of 2025.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Trichy Retail Regional Office/ 5th respondent in WP.(MD)No.22511 of 2025 has submitted a forged copy of the no objection certificate issued by the second respondent/Commissioner of Police, Tirchy City Police to obtain the impugned licence from the first respondent, which is entitled the 5th respondent to commence and operate the new petroleum outlet in the petition mentioned land. No objection certificate from the second respondent/Commissioner of Police had submitted before the first respondent to obtain final explosive licence dated 17.08.2023, whereas, the format which had come into existence only on 04.03.2024, pursuant to the amendment made to the Rule 144(7) of the Petroleum Rules, 2002. If the no objection certificate was issued by the second respondent/ Commissioner of Police on 17.08.2023, it should have been in the preamended format, existing since 10.03.2018. Therefore, the 5th respondent has submitted forged/fabricated no objection certificate. The first respondent has failed to verify the same and without verification issued the impugned final explosive licence. The Central Pollution Control Board has prescribed siting criteria for new petroleum outlets, vide memorandum dated 07.01.2020 wherein a minimum distance of 50 meter and concessionary distance of 30 meter, with prescribed additional safety measures, have been mandated for operating petroleum retail outlets near to residential area, whereas in the instant case, the distance of the proposed site is only 10 to 20 meter from the surrounding residential plots/premises. The proposed site is situated at an intersection on the State Highway as against the prescribed prohibited distance of 100 meter from any nearest road intersection as per G.O.(Ms)No.25, Highways and Minor Ports (HN2) Department dated 24.04.2022.

3. The third respondent /Joint Chief Environmental Engineer, Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board in WP.(MD)No.22511 of 2025 has filed a counter affidavit. The fourth respondent/ Divisional Engineer(Construction and Maintenance) Highways Department in WP. (MD)No.22511 of 2025 has filed a counter affidavit. Counter affidavit has also filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 in WP.(MD)No.22511 of 2025, stating that the first respondent granted licence which is valid up to 31.12.2025 in the format XIV of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 to M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited situated in the petition mentioned land, on the strength of the no objection certificate issued by the Commissioner of Police, Trichy City dated 17.08.2023. The no objection certificate has been granted after considering the comments from the local area development authority regarding conformity of proposal to the local area development planning which clearly indicates that Central Pollution Control Board guidelines have been taken into account by the District Authority for issuing no objection certificate. The first respondent on complete scrutiny of the 5th respondent’s application and other documents as per Rule 141 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 had granted the said licence as per the provisions of said rules with full application of mind. The first respondent had issued a show cause letter to the 5th respondent to mention the distances of facilities located around the petroleum retail outlet as it was mentioned in the drawings submitted by the 5th respondent. The action of the first respondent is only for mentioning the distances between the facilities in the drawing. Prior approval was granted to the subject petroleum retail outlet on 23.11.2022 on receipt of documents as per Rule 131 of the Petroleum Rules 2002. After scrutiny of the specification and plans, the prior approval was issued as per the provisions of the said Rule to the 5th respondent. The organisation of the first respondent is only administering the provisions of Petroleum Rules, 2002 and rule making power is not vested with PESO. The communication issued by the first respondent is only for taking corrective action by the 5th respondent for making subsequent applications if any additions/alterations are required in future under the provisions of Petroleum Rules, 2002.

4. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent/ Commissioner of Police, Trichy City, it has been stated that based on the enquiry reports of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Intelligence Section, Traffic and Cantonment Range, Trichy City and the Inspector of Police, E.Pudur, Police Station issued no objection certificate on 17.08.2023 to the Deputy General Manager, Retail, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules 2002 in the format as prescribed in the notification dated 02.09.2021 of the Gazette of India.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit the 5th respondent in WP.(MD)No.22511 of 2025 had submitted a forged copy of the no objection certificate issued by the second respondent / Commissioner of Police to obtain the impugned licence from the first respondent. The no objection certificate from the second respondent had issued in the format, which is not prescribed under the relevant Rules at the point of time. The no objection certificate from the Commissioner of Police that has been submitted by the 5th respondent before the first respondent to obtain the impugned license dated 17.08.2023, whereas, the format which came into existence only on 04.03.2024, pursuant to the amendment to Rule 144(7) of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 vide the Gazette notification No.142 dated 04.03.2024. If no objection certificate was issued by the second respondent on 17.08.2023, it should have been in the pre-amended format, existing since 10.03.2018. The first respondent who should have verified whether the no objection certificate submitted by the 5th respondent was in the mandatory format in force as prescribed for issuing no objection certificate under Rule 144(7) of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, had blindly accepted the forged/fabricated copy of the no objection certificate without verification and issued the impugned licence.

6. The learned counsel would further submit that the Central Pollution Control Board has prescribed siting criteria for new petroleum retail outlets vide office memorandum dated 07.01.2020 wherein a minimum distance of 50 meter and concessionary distance of 30 meter, with prescribed additional safety measures, have been mandated for operating petroleum retail outlets near to residential area, whereas in the instant case, the distance of the proposed site is only 10 to 20 meter from the surrounding residential plots/premises. The proposed site is situated at an intersection on the State Highway as against the prescribed prohibited distance of 100 meter from any nearest road intersection as per G.O.(Ms)No.25, Highways and Minor Ports (HN2) Department dated 24.04.2022 as amended vide GO.(Ms)No.121 dated 12.09.2023. Rule 131.2 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 contemplates an enquiry by the first respondent before issuing Site Plan Approval to the 5th respondent but no such enquiry has been conducted in accordance with law in the instance case.

7. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited would submit that the petitioner has not come with clean hands. In an earlier occasion, a writ petition was filed as public interest litigation in WP. (MD)No.29567 of 2023 challenging the order dated 31.10.2023 issued by the first respondent herein. The said writ petition on the contest was dismissed on merits by this Court, on 25.10.2024 in favour of the Corporation. In the aforesaid writ petition, the issues pertaining to the violations of distance norms, applicability of G.O.(Ms)No.25 dated 24.02.2022 and enquiry by the authorities before granting of no objection certificate have already been conclusively decided by this Court. Therefore, challenge on the similar ground cannot be raised again and the same is barred by principles of constructive res judicata. The proposed outlet area is not a residential area but it is non-planning area and is in mixed residential and industrial area. The Commissioner of Police, Trichy City after following the guidelines laid down in the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Central Pollution Control Board siting criteria have been followed and after due inspection, the Commissioner of Police and Additional District Magistrate, Trichy under Rule 144 of Petroleum Rules 2002. Right to life of the residents has already been protected by the provisions of Rule 144(7) wherein various factors which are to be covered while granting no objection certificate are already covered. The outlet has been commissioned and has started sales from 14.07.2025. No objection certificate has been granted after completion of due enquiry and the same has been upheld in WP.(MD)No.29567 of 2023. Since the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the no objection certificate issued by the second respondent, the writ petition challenging the order of the competent authorities is not maintainable.

8. In response, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the present writ petition has been filed by the different petitioner and the grounds taken are not considered by this Court in the earlier writ petition. Since the cause of action is different, the principle of res judicata does not apply. He has relied on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2003 8 SCC 319, Ram Chandra Singh vs Savitri Devi And Ors to show that a judgment and decree has been obtained by practising fraud on the court it is trite that the principles of res- judicata shall not apply. It is not in dispute that the present writ petition has been filed challenging the licence issued by the authorities concerned and the earlier writ petition has been filed by some other person challenging the no objection certificate and the licence. In the instant case, the petitioner has raised serious allegations of fraud in issuing no objection certificate and licence, even before the commencement of construction work in the subject place.

9. We have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the records carefully.

10. According to the petitioner, no objection certificate is a forged/ fabricated one and there is no enquiry was conducted. Subsections (1) & (5) of Section 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 deals about the grant of no objection certificate. The said Rule is extracted hereunder:-

               (1) Where the licensing authority is the Chief Controller or the Controller, as the case may be, an applicant for a new licence other than a licence in Forms III, XI, XVII, XVIII, or XIX shall apply to the District Authority with two copies of the site-plan showing the location of the premises proposed to be licensed for a certificate to the effect that there is no objection, to the applicant receiving a licence for the site proposed and the District Authority shall, if he sees no objection, grant such certificate to the applicant who shall forward it to the licensing authority with his application Form IX.

               (5) The District Authority shall complete his inquiry for issuing no objection certificate (NOC) under sub-rule (1) and shall complete the action for issue or refusal of the NOC, as the case may be, as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months form the date of receipt of application by him.

11. It is seen from the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent/Commissioner of Police, Trichy City that while passing the impugned permission, suitable directions were issued to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Intelligence Section, Traffic and Cantonment Range, Trichy City, Inspector of Police, E.Pudhur Police Station, Trichy City to conduct field enquiry on the proposed retail outlet. Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner, Intelligence Section, Trichy City had conducted field enquiry and has submitted his report dated 15.05.2023 wherein he has recommended to operate a new petroleum retail outlet on Edamalaipatti Pudur in the petition mentioned land. The Inspector of Police, Edamalaipatti Pudur Police Station, Trichy City has also conducted field enquiry and submitted his enquiry report dated 14.06.2023 wherein he has no objection to operate a new petroleum retail outlet. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, cantonment range, Trichy City had conducted field enquiry and submitted his enquiry report dated 06.07.2023 wherein he has no objection to operate petroleum retail outlet. Based on the enquiry report of the Assistant Commissioner, Intelligence Section, Traffic and Cantonment Range, Trichy City, Inspector of Police, E.Pudur Police Station, Trichy City, the Commissioner has issued the no objection certificate, on 17.08.2023 to the Deputy General Manager-Retail, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 in the format as prescribed in the notification dated 02.09.2021 of the Gazette of India Petroleum (Amendment) Rules, 2021.

12. It is pertinent to mention that the impugned licence dated 17.08.2023 came to be issued by the first respondent on the basis of the no objection certificate issued by the second respondent, as per Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 in the format prescribed in the notification dated 02.09.2021, whereas the format, which came into existence only on 04.03.2024, whereas, the format relied on by the writ petitioner came into existence on 04.03.2024, pursuant to the amendment to the Rule 144(7) of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, vide Gazette notification No.142 dated 04.03.2024. Therefore, the no objection certificate was issued according to the Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules 2002 in the format prescribed in the notification dated 02.09.2021 of Gazette of India and not according to the Petroleum (Amendment) Rules, 2024. In view of the above, the contention of the writ petitioner that no objection certificate is forged/fabricated one is not acceptable one.

13. The third respondent/Joint Chief Environmental Engineer, Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board has filed a counter affidavit wherein paragraph No.7 reads as under:-

               7. It is respectfully submitted that based on the writ petition the alleged site was inspected by the 3rd respondent on 15.10.2025, the observation reads as follows:

               i. The petroleum outlet is not under operation.

               ii. There are 3 numbers of underground storage tanks, 3 numbers of fill point/dispensing units and 12 numbers of dispenser hose.

               iii. There is Diesel Generator with the capacity of 15 KVA.

               iv. The outlet is surrounded by the following: