Krishnakant Rai Vs Union of India and 4 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 10041 of 2026

¶3

Krishnakant Rai

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
Union Of India And 4 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Arvind Srivastava, Phool Singh Yadav, Vijay Bahadur Vishwakarma
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Yash Padia

¶6

Court No. - 40

¶7

HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.

¶8

Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.1, Sri Yash Padia, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3 and learned Standing Counsel for Staterespondent.

¶9

The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has assailed the No Objection Certificate issued by the District Magistrate, Jhansi in favour of respondent no.4 and rejection order dated 18.09.2024 passed by respondent no.3 whereby candidature of the petitioner has been rejected.

¶10

The record reveals that petitioner has earlier approached this Court by filing Writ-C No.330 of 2026 in which this Court has passed the following order on 12.01.2026:-

¶11

"1. Heard Sri N.C. Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Om Prakash Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents no.1 to 3 as well as Sri Vinay Kumar Khare, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent no.4.

¶12

2. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-

¶13

"(i)issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus by commanding to respondent no.2/Collector, District Jhansi, to consider and decide the complaint of petitioner dated 03-10-2024 (annexure no.12), by providing opportunity of hearing to petitioner, against NOC report dated 20-11-2024 (annexure no.9) of respondent no.3/S.D.M. Jhansi, in disputed plot no. 281, Village: Nohra District-Jhanai, State

¶14

WRIC No. 10041 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

Uttar Pradesh, offered by respondent no.4 for RO Shop/Petrol Pump to BPCL in proposed location."

¶17

3. The petitioner, before this Court, has applied for a retail outlet along with respondent no.4 before the BPCL (Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.). The respondent no.4 was selected and was allotted the retail outlet. The petitioner being unsuccessful has not challenged the action of BPCL, but has tried to stall the proceedings for the installation of the petrol pump on the technical ground that the land in question is not identified and wrong assertion was made by respondent no.4 to whom the retail outlet has been allotted.

¶18

4. This Court finds that without impleading the BPCL as a party and without challenging the action of BPCL, present writ petition is not maintainable.

¶19

5. Writ petition is misconceived and the same stands dismissed."

¶20

Perusal of order dated 12.01.2026 passed in Writ-C No.330 of 2026 discloses that petitioner had approached this Court with a prayer that he be heard by the District Magistrate, Jhansi against the issuance of No Objection Certificate to respondent no.4. The writ petition of the petitioner has been dismissed by this Court for the reason stated in paragraph no.3 of the order, extracted above.

¶21

We are of the view that once this Court has refused to grant the relief to the petitioner for being heard by the District Magistrate, Jhansi before granting No Objection Certificate to private respondent no.4, therefore, after dismissal of aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the No Objection Certificate issued in favour of respondent no.4.

¶22

We further find that petitioner has earlier approached this Court by filing Writ-C No.36640 of 2024 challenging the Letter of Intent issued to respondent no.4, and the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court by order dated 04.02.2025, which order is reproduced herein below:-

¶23

"1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner wishes to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to file afresh on the same cause of action with better particulars.

¶24

2. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh on the same cause of action with better particulars."

¶25

WRIC No. 10041 of 2026

¶26

3

¶27

The petitioner, thereafter, has not filed any writ petition challenging the Letter of Intent issued in favour of respondent no.4.

¶28

We further find that though petitioner has preferred Writ-C No.36640 of 2024 challenging the Letter of Intent of respondent no.4, which he got dismissed as withdrawn, and subsequently, he preferred Writ-C No.330 of 2026 wherein he did not choose to challenge the Letter of Intent issued to respondent no.4, and has only prayed for a direction upon the District Magistrate to hear the complaint of petitioner before granting No Objection Certificate to respondent no.4, therefore, we are of the view that present writ petition praying for quashing of order dated 18.09.2024 rejecting the claim of petitioner cannot be challenged at this stage as the petitioner could have very well challenged the same in the earlier writ petition. It is pertinent to note that this Court while dismissing the Writ-C No.330 of 2026 has recorded a finding that petitioner being unsuccessful has not challenged the action of respondent-BPCL, and by recording the said finding, the writ petition of the petitioner has been dismissed, therefore, the said petition was dismissed also on the ground that petitioner has not challenged the order rejecting the candidature of petitioner.

¶29

In such view of the fact, the writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶30

March 18, 2026 Sattyarth

¶31

(Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)

¶32

Digitally signed by :- SATTYARTH ANAND High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Krishnakant Rai v. Union of India and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnakant Rai v. Union of India and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Ramkrishna Garg and Suppliers vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Ramkrishna Garg and Suppliers vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mahafooj Ali vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Kuldeep Narayan Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. and 13 Others

Smt Prema Devi Vs Regional Transport Authority Kanpur and Others

Chandra Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another