Retail outlet NOC applications must be assessed under norms prevailing when the NIT was issued.

The petitioner was placed first in the merit list for a retail outlet dealership at Mauza Jamharia, Nawada, and arranged the required land and deposits.

Although a Road Department inspection reportedly found no existing retail outlet within 300 metres, the State refused the No Objection Certificate (NOC), stating that the proposed site did not meet the prescribed access norms: the measured distance from the intersection was 6.80 metres against a required 300 metres

The Engineer-in-Chief rejected the proposal by letter dated 6 December 2016.

The petitioner challenged that rejection.

Indian Oil Corporation submitted that the relevant distance norms were introduced after the advertisement and relied on the decision in Smt. Kritika v. State of Bihar & Ors.

1. Whether the petitioner’s NOC application should be assessed under the intersection-distance conditions prevalent when the Corporation issued the N.I.T., rather than under later-introduced conditions.

2. Whether the authorities’ rejection of the NOC could stand without reconsideration under the conditions applicable at the time of the N.I.T.

In Smt. Kritika v. State of Bihar & Ors., the Court held that applications for retail outlet NOCs must be assessed under the land and intersection conditions prevalent when the relevant oil company issued the N.I.T.; later-introduced conditions should not govern an earlier advertisement.

The Court applied that precedent to the present petition.

Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, and the non-statutory character of the Road Construction Department’s guidelines were raised in submissions, but the judgment did not independently decide those questions.

The Court treated the governing question as controlled by Smt. Kritika, which addressed the retrospective application of later-issued conditions to retail outlet applications.

Because the petitioner’s case concerned a distance condition used to reject the NOC, the Court directed the authorities to assess the application under the conditions prevalent when the Corporation issued the N.I.T., rather than resolve the matter by applying the later 300-metre requirement alone.

The Court did not itself determine whether the proposed site satisfied the applicable earlier conditions.

The concerned authorities were directed to reconsider and decide the petitioner’s case in accordance with the conditions prevalent at the time the Corporation issued the N.I.T., within eight weeks from receipt or production of the order.

Any interlocutory applications were also disposed of.