Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 14 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: R. Chandrasekar (S/o Ramasamy) and Satish Kumar (S/o Sundararaju), both residing at No.8/48A, Chinna Milagu Parai, Collector Office Road, Tiruchirappalli‑620 001.
  • Respondents: (1) Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation (PESO), South Circle, Chennai; (2) Member‑Secretary Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board; (3) Regional Director Central Pollution Control Board, Chennai; (4) Commissioner of Police, Trichy City Police Office; (5) Territory Manager (Retail) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd (BPCL).
  • Both writ petitions (WP No. 2172 of 2024 and WP(MD) No. 4126 of 2024) were filed under Article 226 seeking a writ of certiorari and mandamus to quash:
  • Prior Site Approval No. A/P/SC/TN/14/11646 (P546269) dated 26 May 2023 issued by PESO in favour of BPCL.
  • No Objection Certificate (NOC) C.No.M2/22210/2022 dated 9 January 2023 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Trichy, in favour of BPCL.
  • Petitioners alleged that the petroleum‑cum‑CNG retail outlet to be set up on Major Saravanan Road, Town Survey No. 2/4, K. Abishekapuram Village, Tiruchirappalli, violated CPCB siting criteria (minimum 300 m from road intersections, 50 m from residential houses), was approved without proper inspection, and that the NOC was not in the prescribed format under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules.
  • Respondents, represented by Additional Solicitor General of India AR L. Sundaresan, contended that the outlet is to serve the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) fleet, is situated on TNSTC premises, and that the explosive licence required for operation had not yet been granted; therefore the petitions were premature and motivated by private commercial rivalry.
  • Counsel for petitioners: Senior Counsel N.L. Rajah (for both petitioners). Counsel for respondents: ASG AR L. Sundaresan, Govt. Advocates V.T. Balaji, M.R. Gokul Krishnan, N. Palanivel.
  • The Court observed that all petitioners share the same residential address and have filed multiple proceedings (NGT O.A. No. 39 of 2023, Madurai Bench writs, and the present petitions), indicating coordinated proxy litigation aimed at stalling BPCL’s project.
  • The Court referred to Supreme Court precedents (Kalyaneshwari v. Union of India; V.B.R. Menon v. Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas) emphasizing that PILs must be bona‑fide and not a tool for private commercial gain.
  • On merits, the Court examined the NOC dated 9 January 2023 and found it substantially complied with the proforma under Rule 144(7), having considered comments from Revenue, Police, Legal, and other authorities regarding possession, traffic density, road safety, and local planning.
  • The prior site approval dated 26 May 2023 was found to be in consonance with Rule 131 of the Petroleum Rules, containing all required details including the site plan.
  • Inspection reports confirmed that no school or hospital lies within 50 m of the proposed outlet; the filling point and vent pipe are more than 50 m from the nearest residential building; the storage tank complies with CPCB guidelines; the dispensing point is between 30 m and 50 m from residential structures, permissible under CPCB guidelines with additional safety measures, which BPCL has implemented.
  • The site is a four‑road junction opposite the District Collectorate Office, bounded on two sides by TNSTC premises and on the other two by roads, satisfying the required siting criteria.
  • The Court noted that the final explosive licence will be issued only after construction complies fully with the prior site approval; the licence has not yet been granted, and therefore the outlet cannot yet be operational.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petitions (WP 2172/2024 and WP(MD) 4126/2024) are dismissed.
  • The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
  • No costs are awarded to any party.

Topics: Petroleum Retail Regulation, Public Interest Litigation Abuse