Court upholds ruling on NOC for petroleum retail outlet, dismisses appeal, and closes interlocutory applications.

The court upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge, ruling that the No Objection Certificate (NOC) for opening a petroleum retail outlet was subject to the direction contained in the Division Bench's judgment. The court dismissed the writ appeal, finding no illegality or irregularity in the Single Judge's decision, and closed any pending interlocutory applications.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the proposal for opening a petroleum retail outlet by the 10th respondent.
2. Compliance with the Indian Road Congress guidelines regarding distance.
3. Violation of conditions stipulated under the District Collector's order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenge to the Proposal for Opening a Petroleum Retail Outlet by the 10th Respondent:
The writ petition challenged the proposal to open a petroleum retail outlet by the 10th respondent. The main grounds for the challenge were non-compliance with the Indian Road Congress (IRC) guidelines regarding distance and violation of conditions stipulated under the District Collector's order. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by following the judgment in W.A. No. 27 of 2020 and connected cases, holding that the No Objection Certificate (NOC) issued in favor of the 10th respondent and the commencement of the outlet would be subject to the direction contained in the judgment of the Division Bench.

2. Compliance with the Indian Road Congress Guidelines Regarding Distance:
The appellant contended that the proposal for the petroleum retail outlet was against the IRC guidelines regarding the distance. The learned Single Judge, however, noted that the withdrawal of the IRC Guidelines had been stayed by the Madras High Court. Despite this, the learned Single Judge opined that the case was primarily governed by the judgment of the Division Bench in the Writ Appeal, which did not consider the IRC guidelines as binding.

3. Violation of Conditions Stipulated Under the District Collector's Order:
The appellant argued that the learned Single Judge failed to consider the second ground of challenge, which was based on the violation of conditions stipulated under the District Collector's order. The order (Ext. P3) imposed a restriction against reclaiming or filling up the land further. The appellant contended that this restriction was not considered by the third respondent before issuing the NOC. The learned Single Judge did not address this issue in detail, leading the appellant to argue that the matter required reconsideration.

Interim Orders and Precedential Value:
The appellant relied on an interim order passed by the Madras High Court to argue that the learned Single Judge failed to consider its effect. However, the court clarified that interim orders do not have precedential value and are not binding on other courts. The court cited various judgments, including Empire Industries Vs. UOI and Vishnu Traders v. State of Haryana, to support this position.

Precedents and Judicial Discipline:
The court discussed the doctrine of precedents and the binding nature of judicial decisions. It emphasized that each High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is empowered to decide independently, notwithstanding interim orders granted by another High Court. The court cited several judgments, including Union of India v. Raghubir Singh and State of Punjab v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd., to explain the principles of binding precedents and judicial discipline.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the interim order of the Madras High Court had no binding effect on the Kerala High Court. The decision of the Division Bench in W.A. No. 27 of 2020 was binding on the writ court. The court found no illegality or irregularity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ appeal. Pending interlocutory applications were also closed.

---