Introduction

This decision by the Kerala High Court clarifies the scope of the Central Pollution Control Board’s (CPCB) siting criteria for new petroleum retail outlets, particularly Paragraph H of the CPCB Guidelines dated 7 January 2020. The central question was whether “colleges” fall within the sensitive locations that trigger mandatory minimum distance requirements from proposed petrol pumps. The Court held that they do not and that regulatory authorities cannot expand the CPCB’s enumerated list of sensitive receptors beyond what the guidelines expressly state.

The petitioner, Bindhu Kuniparambath, sought to establish an Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) retail outlet in Mananthavady, Wayanad. Despite receiving initial approval from the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation (PESO) and a No Objection Certificate from the District Collector under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives (PESO) rejected the site approval, chiefly on the ground that a college boundary lay within 30 meters and that the site allegedly conflicted with CPCB siting norms and municipal zoning. The petitioner challenged this decision (Ext.P5) as legally untenable.

The judgment squarely addresses three issues: (i) whether colleges are covered by CPCB Paragraph H—siting distances for new petrol pumps; (ii) whether municipal certificates identifying a “mixed zone” and confirming the site is “not a designated residential area” are contradictory; and (iii) whether the rejection order was reasoned and sustainable. The ruling is significant for petroleum retail siting, administrative law, and the interaction between central environmental guidelines and sectoral safety approvals.

Summary of the Judgment

• The Court set aside the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives’ rejection order (Ext.P5) as legally unsustainable.
• It held that CPCB Guidelines dated 7 January 2020 (Paragraph H) restrict siting based on distance only with respect to three categories: schools, hospitals (10 beds and above), and residential areas designated as per local laws. Colleges are not included.
• The Court relied on the plain text of Paragraph H and on CPCB’s own clarification before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) that “colleges have not been included,” considering schools and hospitals as the sensitive locations.
• The Court found that municipal certificates certifying the site as “mixed zone” and “not a designated residential area as per local laws” are consistent, not contradictory.
• The generalized assertion that the site was “not compliant” with CPCB guidelines, without particulars, was inadequate.
• The matter was remitted to the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives for fresh consideration within one month, with liberty to the petitioner to submit proper drawings and other documents and with an obligation on the authority to afford an opportunity of hearing and to keep the Court’s findings in view.

Background and Procedural History

• IOC invited applications to set up petrol pumps in various locations, including Mananthavady town. The petitioner offered 30 cents in Re.Sy.No. 683/2, Mananthavady Village.
• PESO’s Joint Chief Controller granted initial approval on 28 March 2024 (Ext.P2). The District Collector issued a No Objection Certificate under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 on 19 April 2024 (Ext.P3).
• The petitioner then sought final site approval from the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives on 27 January 2025. The application was rejected on 24 February 2025 (Ext.P5), citing (i) the proximity of a college boundary within 30 meters, (ii) the site being a mixed zone without confirmation it was not a designated residential area, and (iii) non-compliance with CPCB guidelines.
• The Union, through the Deputy Solicitor General, argued misrepresentation in the earlier drawing (not showing the college boundary), and also maintained that educational institutions require 30 meters minimum distance. The Municipality’s certificates (Exts.P6 and P7) were portrayed as contradictory.
• The CPCB filed a statement clarifying the siting norms and its stance before the NGT on whether “colleges” are included under the term “schools.”

Regulatory and Policy Framework

• Petroleum Rules, 2002: Rule 144 contemplates the District Authority’s No Objection Certificate for storage/sale of petroleum—separate from PESO’s technical safety approvals.
• PESO: Statutory authority overseeing petroleum and explosives safety; issues approvals for retail outlets, applying sectoral safety codes and relevant environmental siting criteria.
• CPCB Guidelines (7 January 2020) – Paragraph H:
  • New retail outlets should not be located within a radial distance of 50 meters (from fill point/dispensing units/vent pipe, whichever is nearest) from:
    • schools,
    • hospitals (10 beds and above), and
    • residential areas designated as per local laws.
  • If 50 meters cannot be achieved, additional safety measures prescribed by PESO must be implemented.
  • In no case shall the distance be less than 30 meters to these specified sensitive receptors.
  • No high-tension line shall pass over the retail outlet.

Analysis

Precedents and Authorities Cited in the Judgment

The judgment does not cite reported case law. It anchors its reasoning in:

• CPCB Guidelines (7.1.2020), Paragraph H: The primary normative instrument controlling siting distances.
• CPCB’s clarification before the NGT (PB) in O.A. No. 408/2023 (order dated 20.12.2023): CPCB stated in its reply (02.02.2024) that “colleges have not been included” in the siting criteria, as schools and hospitals (10 beds and above) were considered the sensitive locations. The matter was stated to be sub judice, but CPCB’s position was clear.

Thus, the Court’s interpretive approach was textual and institutional: read the guideline as written and give weight to the guideline’s author (CPCB) on what it intended to include.

Legal Reasoning

1. Textual interpretation of Paragraph H; no room to add “colleges” to the list.

   The Court emphasized that Paragraph H enumerates only three categories—schools, hospitals (10 beds and above), and designated residential areas. It noted the absence of any generic language (e.g., “educational institutions”) that would sweep in colleges. The principle is straightforward: when a rule-maker chooses specific terms, other categories are excluded unless expressly included. The judgment expressly states that the guidelines “do not require any minimum distance between educational institutions aside from schools and retail outlets.”

   Two elements reinforced this textual approach:

   • The CPCB’s own submission before the NGT that colleges were not treated as sensitive locations for the siting norm; and
   • The recognition that regulators like PESO cannot expand the scope of a central guideline by interpretation where the guideline is narrowly drafted.

   Consequently, the Deputy Chief Controller’s reliance on a college boundary within 30 meters as a disqualifying factor was held “untenable.”

2. Municipal certificates were consistent, not contradictory.

   The Deputy Chief Controller treated two certificates from the Municipality as conflicting: one declaring the site within a “mixed zone (not under the residential zone)” and more than 50 meters from the nearby residential zone as per the Master Plan (7.2.2025), and another stating “the proposed site/key plan is not a designated residential area as per local laws” (25.2.2025). The Court reasoned that both certificates say the same thing in different words and, in fact, the second certificate uses the exact phraseology the CPCB guideline requires—“designated residential area as per local laws.” The alleged contradiction therefore collapses; the site is not in a designated residential area per local law.

3. Conclusory “non-compliance” is not a reason.

   The third ground in the rejection order—that the site is “not compliant with CPCB guidelines”—was unparticularized and merely repeated the earlier points. A decision that affects rights must state reasons that meaningfully engage with the applicable standard; otherwise, it cannot withstand judicial review. The Court treated this as a reiteration of already flawed reasoning.

4. Process on remand.

   While setting aside the rejection, the Court permitted the petitioner to submit proper drawings and other documents and directed the Deputy Chief Controller to hear the petitioner and IOC if clarification is needed and to decide afresh within one month, applying the Court’s findings. This preserves institutional roles: PESO remains free to apply the correct standards to complete and accurate materials but cannot rely on grounds the law does not recognize.

Key Holdings

• “The Controller of Explosives cannot refuse approval for starting a new outlet for sale of petroleum products for the reason that a college is situated within the distance limits stipulated in the guidelines issued by [CPCB].”
• The CPCB distance rule applies only to schools, hospitals with more than 10 beds, and “designated residential areas” per local law.
• Municipal certification that a site is in a “mixed zone” and “not a designated residential area as per local laws” is adequate to satisfy the relevant limb of Paragraph H.
• Unexplained assertions of non-compliance with guidelines are insufficient; the authority must provide concrete, guideline-based reasons.

Impact and Implications

This decision delivers immediate and broader consequences for petroleum retail siting and administrative action in Kerala and potentially beyond:

• For PESO and allied regulators: The judgment constrains the approval authority to the four corners of CPCB’s text. It cannot read “schools” as “all educational institutions” or introduce unwritten categories, even for safety rationales. This promotes legal certainty and guards against arbitrariness.
• For Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs) and dealers: Applicants can plan sites with clarity: distance checks are against schools, hospitals with 10+ beds, and designated residential areas—not colleges. If a proposed site is between 30 and 50 meters from any listed sensitive receptor, it may still be approvable with “additional safety measures prescribed by PESO,” as the guideline allows.
• For Local Bodies: The phrase “designated residential area as per local laws” is determinative. Municipal certifications should explicitly use this language and refer to the Master Plan/zoning instruments to avoid ambiguity. “Mixed zone” with an explicit negation of residential designation meets the Paragraph H requirement.
• National context and future litigation: The Court’s approach is text-centric and buttressed by CPCB’s own stance before the NGT. If CPCB later amends Paragraph H to include colleges or other educational institutions, regulators must apply the amended text prospectively. Pending NGT proceedings may also influence national uniformity; until then, this precedent binds authorities in Kerala.
• Administrative law practice: The decision underscores the necessity of reasoned orders and fidelity to the governing instrument. Authorities may not reject applications on broader policy intuitions absent textual support in the controlling guidelines or law.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Paragraph H “radial distance”: Measure the straight-line distance from the nearest of the fill point, dispensing unit, or vent pipe of the proposed outlet to the sensitive receptor (school, hospital 10+, designated residential area). The default buffer is 50 meters; the absolute minimum is 30 meters with additional safety steps if between 30 and 50 meters.
• “Designated residential area as per local laws”: This refers to residential zones identified in binding planning instruments (e.g., Municipal Master Plan, Development Plan). A site in a “mixed zone” that is not designated as residential is generally outside this restriction.
• PESO vs. CPCB roles: CPCB sets environmental siting criteria; PESO ensures technical and safety compliance for petroleum installations. PESO applies CPCB’s siting norms but cannot enlarge them beyond the text.
• Rule 144, Petroleum Rules, 2002 (NoC): A District Authority’s preliminary clearance related to storage and sale of petroleum. It is necessary but not sufficient; PESO’s technical approval is also required and must be based on correct legal standards.
• “Sub judice”: The NGT matter addressing whether “colleges” should be read into “schools” is pending. However, CPCB has already told the NGT that “colleges have not been included,” and this judgment aligns with that position.
• Reasoned decision-making: Administrative orders must disclose reasons that link facts to applicable rules. Conclusory statements such as “not compliant” are generally inadequate.
• Interpretation canons at play: When a rule lists certain items (schools, hospitals 10+, designated residential areas) and omits others, the omission is significant. Regulators should not “supply” omissions by interpretation (casus omissus) or rewrite a rule by reading in generic categories that the author did not use.

Practical Guidance Post-Judgment

• For applicants/OMCs:
  • Prepare precise site plans showing fill points, dispensers, vent pipes, and distances to the nearest school, hospital (10+ beds), and designated residential zones.
  • Obtain municipal certification expressly stating whether the site is a “designated residential area as per local laws.” If it is a mixed zone, seek an explicit statement that it is not a designated residential area and, where possible, the nearest residential zone and its distance as per the Master Plan.
  • If the site lies between 30 and 50 meters of any listed sensitive receptor, propose and document “additional safety measures prescribed by PESO” in line with the CPCB guideline.
• For PESO officers:
  • Confine site distance scrutiny to the three categories in Paragraph H. Do not treat colleges as “schools” absent a guideline amendment.
  • When rejecting, specify the factual basis and the precise limb of Paragraph H or other applicable code violated. Avoid bare conclusions.
  • Afford an opportunity to cure defects in drawings and to be heard, particularly where clarifications can resolve compliance doubts.
• For Municipalities/Planning Authorities:
  • Use clear, guideline-consistent language: confirm whether the site “is/is not a designated residential area as per local laws” and reference the operative planning instrument (e.g., Mananthavady Master Plan).
  • Where helpful, note proximity to the nearest residential zone boundary.

Related Jurisprudence (Contextual, not cited in the Judgment)

Although not cited, the judgment’s approach aligns with established administrative law principles:

• Textual fidelity and casus omissus: Courts and administrators should not add words to a rule/guideline that the author omitted.
• Reasoned orders: The requirement that orders stand or fall on the reasons they contain is a bedrock of judicial review. Attempts to bolster an order post facto cannot cure an unreasoned decision.
• Wednesbury rationality: A decision must be based on relevant considerations and exclude irrelevant ones; expanding “schools” to include “colleges” would be an irrelevant consideration under the current CPCB text.

These principles help explain why the Court insisted that PESO adhere strictly to the CPCB’s textual categories and give cogent reasons tied to that framework.

Conclusion

The Kerala High Court’s ruling in Bindhu Kuniparambath v. The Joint Chief Controller of Explosives sets a clear and practical precedent: CPCB’s siting distances for petrol pumps under Paragraph H are confined to the categories expressly stated—schools, hospitals with 10 or more beds, and designated residential areas under local laws. Colleges are not covered. Regulators cannot broaden the guideline by interpretation. Municipal certifications that a site is “not a designated residential area as per local laws” meet the guideline’s zoning requirement, and rejection orders must articulate specific, guideline-based reasons.

By remitting the matter for fresh consideration with a directive to follow these findings, the Court preserves regulatory rigor while eliminating arbitrariness. The decision offers much-needed certainty to OMCs, dealers, and local authorities on how to apply the CPCB framework and underscores core administrative law values: textual fidelity, reasoned decision-making, and fair process.