WP/14186/2023 of Mohammed Moulana Mahboob Ali Vs The State of Telanagana on 31 December 2024

ORDER

The writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondent No.2-Commissioner of Police, Siddipet, in issulng LetterNo.M/17/2O4/2O2t dateo t9.O4.2022 as being arbitrary,u nconstitutiona I and contrary to the law laid down by this Courtand consequently, direct the respondent No.2 to issue NOC to thepetitioner for installation of new retail outlet in the land of thepetitioner admeasuring A.0.20 guntas in Sy.No.242lA/2, MaddurVillage, Maddur Mandal, Siddipet District.

2. It is stated that the [petitioner ]is the absolutd owner andpossessor of the subject land having acquired the same through aregistered gift deed from his father, namely, Mohammed DawoodAli vide document bearing No.l34l2O2l [registered ][before ][the]Tahsildar and Sub-Registrar, Maddur. [Originally ][the ][subject ][land]was an agricultural land. Later, the [petitioner ]applied [for ]conversionof the agricultural Land into [non ][-agricu ][ltura ]I [land ][before ][the]Tahsildar and Joint Sub-Registrar, [Maddur ]and [the ].same [was]accorded for the conversion vide [Proceedings ][No.2100144999]dated 18.02.2021.

3. It is stiated that In response to the [advertisemen: ][dated]14.72.2078 published by the [respondent ][No.3, ][the ][petitioner]submitted appllcation [No.15470163296234 dated 09.01.2C19 for]allotment of l,1SIHSD .Retail [Outlet ][Dealership. ][In ][pursu ][a ][nce ][of]drawal of lots;, the [respondent ][No'3 ][issued ][a ][Lett(lr ][vide]Ref. No.15470I -Cr3296234 dated [06.12.2019 informing ][that ][the]petitioner has been declared as successful [candidate ][in ][the ][drawal]of lots conducted on [05.12.2019 ][for ][selection ][of ][Retail ][outlet ][(RO)]dealership at [1-t'e ]subject [location. ][Thereafter, ][the respond€rt ][No'3]issued one nrore letter [bearing ][No.15470163296234 ][dated]09.72.2020 to the [petitioner ][for ][collecting ][of ][the ][letter oi'intent']Subsequently, [t-he ]respondent [No.3 ][issued ][a ][Letter ][oFJnt(lnt ][vide]N RT/N RO/AD\T 20 [1 ]8- [1 ]9/S. [NO. ][408/LOI ][dated ][22. 12.2O2O.]

4. It is stated that for the [purpose ][of ][starting ][construction ][of]the Retail Sutlet, the [respondent ][No'3 ][issued ][a ][Letter]No.NRT. NRO.DMNOC. MADDUR [dated ][03.O2.2021 ][to ][the ][respondent]No.2 to issue No-Objection Certificate [in ][respect ][of ][the ][said ][Retail]Outlet. The [resoondent ][No.2 ][issued ][a ][letter ][No.Ml77 ][/204/2021]dated 01.03.110d21 to the [Revenue Divisional ][officer, ][Husnabad;]District Panchayat Officer, [Siddipet; ][Execute Englneer, ][(R&B),]Siddlpet; Assistant [Commissioner ][of ][Police, ][Husnabi:rl ][and]Divisional Englneer, Electrical [Operation, ][TSSPDCL, ][Cht:r'ial, ][to]furnish rema rk:;/ reports for issuing t'lOJf [frereafter, ][the ][Executive]

{

C

J

Engineer (R&B), Division, Siddipet through Letter No.LrlNo/PA/T3lNOC/petrol pump/Maddur(v)/202u2022l dated 05.t0.2027requesting the respondent No.2 to issued NOC. Similarly, letterswere issued by the District Panchayat Officer (FAC) Siddipet,the Divisional Engineer, Operation, TSSPDCL, Husnabad Divisionand the Revenue Divisional Officer.

5. It is stated that after receiving all the enquiry reports andalso the enquiry Report from the Assistant Commissioner of Police,the respondent No.2 issued Letter No.Ml17/204/2021 dgtedt9.O4.2O22 to the respondent No.3 rejecting NOC to the [petitioner]for installation of new retail outlet of MS/HSD stating that as [per]the guidelines of IRC: tz-2}Og for access, location Sd [tayout of]roadside fuels stations and service stations, the minimum [distance]between two fuel stations must be 300 meters but there [is ]a [HP]filling station located at a distance of 50 meters to the [proposed]site. The respondent No.3 issued a clarification [Letter ][No.NRT.NRO']DMNOC. MADDUR dated 21.06.2022 requesting [for ][the ][issuance ][of]NOC stating that the Indian Roads Congress [(IRC) guidelines ][on]which the request for NOC was rejected [is ][not ][a ]statutory [body ][and]is only an advisory committee. But the [respondent No.2 has ][not]considered the said clarification. [The ][respondent No.3 issued Letter]vide NRT/LOI SCN/ADW. No.408 dated [31.03.2023 ]to [the]petitioner to approach the respondent No.3 with supporting

documents \ [rithin ]21 days. [Thereafter, ][the ][petitioner ][rr:ceived]Letter vide NRT/LOI SCN/ADW. [No.408 ][dated ][17.O4-2O23 ][asking]explanation as to why there [is ][no progress ][in setting ][up ][of the ][retail]outlet. The [petitioner submitted ][a ][reply dated 18.04'2023 ][to ][the]respondent t\|o.3 requesting [not ]to [withdraw ][the ][offer ][()l' ][Retail]Outlet, as he is intending to [file ][a ][writ ][petition.]

6. The cerse of the respondent [No.2 ][is that ][reports ][were]requisitioned from various authorities. [The Assistant ][Commissioner]of Police, Hus;nabad, submitted enquiry [report ][vide ][C'No.242/ACP-]HSB/2027, dared 15.12.2021 stating that the [propose(l ][site ][is]having 33 KV power line and one HP filling [station is ][located ][beside]50 meters frorr the [proposed ]site. [The ][Revenue ][Divisi6na ][Officer,]Husnabad vido Letter No.D/2OO/2021 dated.9.11.2021 [reported]that one HP F'etrol Bunk exists near the [proposed New ][Retail ][Outlet]of MS/HSD and one road leading to the [village is ][in ][between ][these]two petrol burrks i.e. existing HP Petrol Bunk [and ][propost-'d ][New]Retail Outlet of MS/HSD. The Executive Engineer, [R&B ][Division,]Siddipet throLgh Letter No. PA'/T3/NOC/PetrolPump/Maddur(V)/2O2l-22/5Oa dated.5.10.2021/6.11.2021 informed that [the]existing road is single lane of undivided carriage way; th€: bufferstrip size is prr:posed with 11.0 meters x 2.0 meters, whi<:h needsto be correcte,l; there is no approach road; there is no drainagefacility etc.

T.ItisstatedthatDistrictPanchayatofficer.siddipetandtheExecutive Engineer, [R&B ][Department ][have expressed ][no ][objection']The Divisional [Engineer, Electrical, ][Operation' ][TSSPDCL' ][Husnabad]DivisionvideMemo.No.DEE/oP/HSB/AElcomml.DlNo'514812o-27,daled 2!.O2.2O22 [stated ][that ][they ][have ][no ][objection ][for ][installation]of New Retail [outlet, ][subject ][to ][certain ][conditions/com ][plia ][n ][ces.]It is submitted [that, ][as ][per ][the report ][of ][the ][ACP' ][Husnabad & ][RDO']Husnabad and [as per ][the ][guidelines ][of ][IRC: ][12-2OO9 ][for ][access']location and [layout ][of ][roadside ][fuel ][stations ][and ][service ][stations]and Rule [No.(a.6) ][the ][minimum ][distance between ][two fuel ][stations]would be as [: ][Rule ][No.(a.6.1) ][Plain ][and rolling ][terrain ][in ][non-urban]both sides [of](rural) areas: [Undivided carriageway ][(for]/carriageway) [is 300 ][meters (including deceleration and ][acceleration]lanes). By [considering ][the ][above ][reports' ][the ][respondent ][No'2]informedtherespondentNo.3thatrequestforNoCisrejected.The respondent [No.3 again ][submitted ][an ][application ][dated]2L.6.2O22on [similar ][lines requesting ][the ][respondent ][No'2 ][to ][issue]NOC and the [same was rejected ][vide vide ][Letter No'M/17l204l]2021 dated 01.06.2023.

8. In the counter [filed by ][the ][respondent ][No'3' ][it ][is stated that]the IRC [guidelines ][are only ][recommendatory ][in ][nature and ][not]mandafory. [IRC ][is not a statutory ][body, ][but ][it ][is ][an ][Apex ][Body of]Highwa) Engineers [in the ][country' ][It ][suggests ][improved ][methods]

of planning. design, construction/ maintenance and admrnistrationof roads. Thu:;, the impugned rejection is illegal.

9. Learnr:d counsel for the petitioner relied on a Divis on Benchdecision of this Court in PUTTALA ROSHAIAH v. UNION OFINDIA1 ancl decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh inB.MADHAVI v. UNION OF INDIA2, to support his contention thatIRC guidelines are not mandatory in nature.

10. Learnec Government Pleader for Home submitted that thedistance bet'^/een the existing retail outlet and the p.oposed ietaitoutlet is 50 meters and the safety of the public and th€ vehiclesneeds to be <ept in mind before NOC is issued. There is everypossibility of lccidents being caused iF the distance between thetwo retail outlets is less than the prescribed standard. l-hus, therejection of N,f C vide Letter No.M/1.7 /2O4/2O2L dated L9.04.2022does not call fr:r any interference.

11. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learnedGovernment P eader for Home.

12. In parit 7 of PUTTALA ROSHAIAH's case (1 supra), it washeld as under:

' [lo2r ][(5) ]AI-D 7-: I (TS) (DB)' (201 I ) I High Cou,t Cases (Ap) t4O : 2O2t SCC Online Ap i7r t \

"7- Much has been argued upon [violation ][of ][the ][guidelines]framed by the learned counsel [for the ][petitioners' ][The]guidelines framed by Indian [Road ]Congress, [2009 ][certainly]do not have statutory [force. They ][are only ][directory ][in]nature and not mandatory [in ][nature. The petitioners ][have]not pointed out violation of any [statutory ][provision ][of law ][in]the matter of establishment [of ][retail outlet. ][Therefore, ][in ][the]considered opinion of [this ][Court, as ][Bharat ][Petroleum ][Oil]Corporation Limited is establishing [a ][retail outlet ][after]following due [process ]of [law, no ][case ][for ][interference ][is]made out in the matter."

In B.MADHAVI's case [(2 ][supra), ][the ][High Court ][of ][Andhra]

Pradesh relied on [the judgments of ][the ][Supreme Court and varibus]High Courts and held [at ][paras ][16 ][and ][17 ][as ][under:]

"16. Sri Dominic Ferandes [would ][rely ][uPon ][a ][ludgm/ent of]the Hon'ble High Court [of ][Orissa reported ][as ][Indiin ][Oil]Limited [vs. ][collector ][& ]DistrictCorporation l{agistrate, Taipur [(2OL7 ][SCc ][online ][Orissa ][687;]MANU/oR/o6oo/2017) [which considered various Judgments of]the Hon'ble Supreme [Court and ][other ][Courts including ][the]ludgment of a Division [Bench ][of a ][Madhya Pradesh ][High]Court in Writ [Appeal No.568 ][of ][2OL4 ][in ][Shailendra ][vs']Smt.Saroi 8fiafi [(Division ][Bench ][of ][Madhya Pradesh ][High]Court), ludgment [of ][a ][Division ][Bench ][of ][Pubjab ][and ][Hariyana]High court in the [case ][of ][Environment society ][of India']Chandigarh vs. Administrator, ChandigarhAdministration, [llnion ][Territory, ][Chandigarh ][(AIR ][1998]Punjab and Haryana [94), ludgment ][of ][the ][High ][Court ][of]Allahabad in Deepak [Agarwal ][vs. ][State ][of ][U'P' ][(2002 ][(95)]FLR 63; 2oO3 [(1) ]SLR [213; ][(2011) ][6 ][ScC ][725) ][in ][Civil]Miscelfaneous Writ [Petition ][No'27 ][L84 ][of ][2013 wherein ][in ][all]

I

a

the above ludgments it was consistenfly held that thegurdel nes of the Indian Roads Congress are not mandatory.17. In View of the aforesaid ludgments, it would have to beheld that the guidelines issued by the Indian Roads cong ressare nor mandatory and binding in 2nd respondent,sCorporation. Further, the advertisement did not set out anyconditio''t that the guidelines set out by the Indian Rc)adsCongress would be applicable. In these circumstances, thecontentiJn of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the9th respondent cannot operate a retail outlet within 310meters of the retail outlet of the petitioner, cannot beacceptr:c|. "

13. In the: light of the consistent view taken by various HighCourts holdin g that IRC guidelines are only directory and . notmandatory and further that the respondent No.2 has not pointedout any statJt.ory provision or contra decision that IRC auidelinesare mandatc,ry, the writ petition deserves to be all6wed and isaccordingly allowed. ConsequenUy, the respondent No.2 is rlirectedto issue NOC in respect of the New Retail Outlet on the subjectproperty of ther petitioner.

The rrriscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

SD/.T. TIRUMALA [DEVI]ASSISTANT [REGISTRAR]\SECTION OFFICER

//TRUE COPY//

To1. The [Principal Secretary, Department of Home' Secretariat State of]Telanagana [at ][HYderabad']1. The [Principal Secretary, Department of Home' Secretariat State of]Telanagana [at ][HYderabad']

Z. ine Coinmissioner [of Police, Siddipet ][Districl]

3. The [Territory Manager, ][fietaill, ][Ni)amabad ][Bharat Petroleum Corporation]Ltd , 1st [Floor, ][C ][N ][;oilp[', ][Arya ][Nagar' Hyderabad ][Road' ][Nizamabad']T.S [[-503230.]][[at]]Ltd , 1st [Floor, ][C ][N ][;oilp[', ][Arya ][Nagar' Hyderabad ][Road' ][Nizamabad']T.S [[-503230.]][[at]]

T.S [[-503230.]]+. iwl cbi [to ][e ][p ][FoR ][HoME, ][High ][court ][for ][the state ][of ][relangana ][[at]]HYderabad [OUT]HYderabad [OUT]

Y

L

\

HIGH COURT

DATED:31 11212024

ORDERWP.No.14186 of 2023

ALLOWING THE W.P

WITHOUT COSTS.Y,n-U[q]z-),

I

l ilE [:-i ]l'i14:I,,\e-\C.OoI 1 plAH 2025Iic{

-at_,ffi