Palepu Suri Babu vs Sri Veera Venkata Fuels
- Court
- Madras High Court
WA No.3246 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.10.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G. ARUL MURUGAN
WA No. 3246 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012188512026}
and CMP No.28662 of 2026
1. Palepu Suri Babu
Door No.09-05-029, Kothapeta,
Near Ramalayam, Yanam 533 464.
Appellant(s)
Vs
1. Sri Veera Venkata Fuels
Rep. by its Prop. Villa Mangapathi
Rao, Survey No.108/7, 108/8,
108/9 and 108/10, Mettacur
Village, Yanam Taluka, Union
Territory of Puducherry 533 464.
2.The Dist.Collector
Puducherry District, Puducherry.
3.The Sub Divisional Magistrate
Office of the Sub Divisional
Magistrate, Yanam, Puducherry.
Respondent(s)
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:27:44 pm )
WA No.3246 of 2026
PRAYER
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order
dated 10-07-2026 in WP.No.26105/2026 on the file of this Court.
For Appellant: Mr.N.G.R.Prasad,
Senior Counsel Thr' VC
for Mr.K.Srinivasa Murthy
for M/s.Row and Reddy
*
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was
delivered by G.Arul Murugan, J.)
This intra-court appeal assails the order dated 10.07.2026
passed in WP No.26105 of 2026, whereby the Writ Court has disposed
of the writ petition allowing the petitioner/R1 herein to proceed with
the construction and leaving it open to the respondents to carry out
inspection.
2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, who is
the third respondent in the writ petition, submitted that the appellant
is aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge allowing the first
respondent to proceed with the construction. He further submitted
that the appellant, being a resident of that locality, is aggrieved by the
Page 2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:27:44 pm )
WA No.3246 of 2026
fact that the No Objection Certificate (NOC) granted in favour of the
first respondent is not in order, as the petroleum outlet is sought to be
established within the prohibited distance from the waterbody.
3. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and perused
the material available on record.
4. Based on the application submitted by the first respondent/
writ petitioner, it is seen that already the third respondent/Sub-
Divisional Magistrate has issued No Objection Certificate dated
30.04.2026 in favour of the first respondent allowing them to put up a
petroleum outlet. After the NOC has been issued, it seems that the
appellant herein, who is a third party, has submitted an objection
regarding the grant of NOC and in this regard, the third respondent
has, by proceedings dated 24.06.2026, directed for re-examination by
conducting an enquiry. Aggrieved, the first respondent filed the writ
petition challenging the proceedings of the third respondent dated
24.06.2026, insofar as it seeks to reopen the issue in respect of the
NOC already granted.
Page 3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:27:44 pm )
WA No.3246 of 2026
5. The learned Single Judge, after considering the submission of
R1 herein that the proceedings for fresh re-examination has been
issued without issuing any notice or affording opportunity and the
submission of learned Government counsel that it is only an intra-
departmental communication where a report is called for, allowed the
petitioner/R1 to continue the construction and left it open to the
respondents to carry on the inspection. Assailing the order passed in
the writ petition, the appellant herein, who is the third respondent in
WP, has come before this Court.
6. At the outset, it must be noted that any grievance regarding
the order passed in the writ petition lies primarily with the first
respondent/writ petitioner. Although the first respondent initially
challenged the proceedings dated 24.06.2026 contending that the
second respondent lacked authority to reopen the issue once the NOC
was granted, the learned Single Judge ultimately allowed them to
proceed with construction, while leaving it open to the authorities to
conduct inspection. However, the first respondent had not filed any
appeal. Instead, the appellant, a third party, has filed this appeal
Page 4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:27:44 pm )
WA No.3246 of 2026
contending that the Single Judge exceeded the scope of the writ
petition by permitting the construction.
7. It is also to be noted that under the scheme of things, if a
petroleum outlet is to be established, the Executive Magistrate issues
the NOC under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 and based on
the NOC granted, the authorities of Petroleum and Explosives Safety
Organisation (PESO) grant site approval. On the issuance of site
approval, constructions are carried out and, subsequently, explosive
licence is granted, based on which, the petroleum outlet is
commissioned. The subject matter of the writ petition was only with
regard to the re-opening of the issue by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate
and there, the issue of any site approval granted or subsequent
permissions granted in favour of the first respondent was not in issue.
When the facts stood thus, we do not find any error in the order
passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the first respondent to
proceed with the construction, particularly when the fact remains that
the NOC dated 30.04.2026 issued in favour of the first respondent is
admittedly not under challenge in any one of the proceedings.
Page 5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:27:44 pm )
WA No.3246 of 2026
8. Under such circumstances, the present appeal filed by the
rd
appellant/3 respondent, when the learned Single Judge has also
permitted the authorities to carry on the inspection, is without any
basis. Under the scheme of the Rules, the petroleum outlet could be
commissioned only after obtaining all the necessary approvals by
satisfying the regulatory criteria.
In view of the above, we find no merit in the appeal.
Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as
to costs. Consequently, the interim application stands closed.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CJ.) (G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.)
27.10.2026
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
sra
Page 6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:27:44 pm )
WA No.3246 of 2026
To
1.The Dist.Collector
Puducherry District, Puducherry.
2.The Sub Divisional Magistrate
Office of the Sub Divisional
Magistrate, Yanam, Puducherry.
Page 7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:27:44 pm )
WA No.3246 of 2026
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.
(sra)
WA No.3246 of 2026
27.10.2026
Page 8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:27:44 pm )