Lalit Pathak Vs Deputy Commissioner and Others

Petitioner has questioned the No Objection Certificate (NOC) dated 24.06.2024 issued by the respondent- Public Works Department in favour of respondent No.7 for setting up and running a petroleum retail outlet over the land comprised in Khata Nos. 62 & 69, Khatauni Nos. 73 & 66 and Khasra No. 317/1 Major District Road 76 Shimla-Mandi (via Tatapani) at Village and Post Office, Baggi, Tehsil Balh, District Mandi, H.P. In

¶15

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

¶16

2

¶17

( 2026:HHC:15988 )

¶18

essence, the petitioner seeks to assail the setting up of new retail outlet of respondent No.7 over the land in question.

¶19

2. Heard learned co( 2026:HHC:15988 )unsel for the parties and considered the case file.

¶20

3. The case

¶21

3(i). No Objection Certificate was granted by respondents No. 3 & 4- State Public Works Department in favour of respondent No.7 on 13.04.2023 for installing a new petroleum outlet over the above described land. Feeling aggrieved by the issuance of NOC, petitioner instituted Civil Writ Petition No.2578/2023 primarily on the grounds that gradient on the spot in question was more than 05% i.e. maximum limit set down in the guidelines issued by Ministry of Road, Transport & Highways & Indian Roads Congress and also breached distance para-meters vis-a-vis residential houses in terms of norms fixed by the Central Pollution Control Board/ Indian Roads Congress guidelines. During pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the respondent- Public Works Department issued a corrigendum on 19.06.2023 withdrawing its previously issued NOC dated 13.04.2023 in favour of respondent No.7. The corrigendum stated that as up-gradation work of the road portion in question i.e. Chail Chowk to Baggi

¶22

3

¶23

( 2026:HHC:15988 )

¶24

was in progress, there was scope for improvement of road from single lane to intermediate lane which might in turn improve curves as also grades and therefore, keeping in view the scope of up-gradation of the road, NOC issued by the Public Works Department to respondent No.7 though was issued but the final gradient and curve sharpness report/ NOC would be issued only on completion of the up-gradation work of the road.

¶25

Based upon the aforesaid corrigendum, the petitioner withdrew CWP No.2578/2023 on 09.10.2023. 3(ii). It appears from the record that road was thereafter upgraded. After up-gradation of road, the final gradient of the spot where the retail outlet was to be installed was ascertained as 4.72% i.e. below 5%. Finding the gradient within prescribed parameters, the respondent-Public Works Department issued NOC in favour of respondent No.7 for setting up petroleum retail outlet on 24.06.2024.

¶26

Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has preferred this writ petition. During hearing of the case, it was apprised that pursuant to the NOC so issued, respondent No.7 has since installed the retail outlet and is running the same.

¶27

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner could not dispute that after up-gradation of road in question,

¶28

4

¶29

( 2026:HHC:15988 )

¶30

the gradient where the retail outlet was to be set up, was ascertained at 4.72% i.e. well within the permissible norms as per Indian Roads Congress guidelines pressed into service by the petitioner. Regarding the second issue raised by the petitioner i.e. distance between the retail outlet and the residential houses being around 18 meters and therefore, violating the para-meters set up in this regard by Central Pollution Control Board, the joint inspection report placed on record as Annexure R7-4 is to the effect that nearest residential house is at a distance of 35 meters from dispensing unit of the retail outlet as against the requirement of 30 meters in the applicable guidelines.

¶31

Apart from above factual aspects, it needs to be noticed that respondent No.7 in its reply has pointed out petitioner being his business rival; That petitioner is proprietor of Krishma Filling Station, situated at Dharbathu at a distance of 500 meters from the retail outlet in question. Interestingly, the petitioner in his entire writ petition has not even made any whisper about his being in the same business as that of respondent No.7; That petitioner is running a retail outlet much less about his running the retail outlet in the near vicinity of retail outlet in question. Even to the reply filed by

¶32

5

¶33

( 2026:HHC:15988 )

¶34

respondent No.7, specifically detailing petitioner’s aforesaid business pursuits, vague answer has been given by the petitioner in his rejoinder. It is well settled one who comes to the Court must come with clean hands giving full disclosure without concealing any material facts. The petitioner being a business rival has even otherwise no locus-standi to maintain the writ petition. In this regard, reference can be made to following precedents:-

¶35

(i) Padma Highways Filling Station vs. Regional Administrator-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate & Ors² . Relevant paras are as under:-

¶36

“1. The petitioner is running a petroleum filling station and they have challenged the No Objection Certificate dated 12.01.2022 issued by the first respondent and in-principle approval letter dated 22.12.2021 issued by the second respondent in favour of the sixth respondent for resitement of the petroleum outlet of the HPCL from Rural Yanam to National Highways as contemplated in Rule 1.5 & 1.6 of the guidelines issued for resitement of retail outlet dealership by HPCL.

¶37

Learned counsel for the sixth respondent would reiterate the submissions made by the learned Additional Government Pleader (Pondy) for the first respondent. Apart from that he would submit that a writ petition cannot be filed by a business rival. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the following judgments viz.,

¶38

(a) A Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Nataraja Agencies vs.

¶39

22022 SCC Online Madras 3516

¶40

6

¶41

( 2026:HHC:15988 )

¶42

Secretary, Ministry of petroleum & others reported in (2005) 1 CTC 394;

¶43

(b) Order of this Court in the case of Palani Murugan Agencies vs. District Collector reported in (2005) 1 LW 792; and

¶44

(c) Order of this Court in the case of P.Selvi vs. District Magistrate & others reported in AIR 2021 Mad 27.

¶45

Learned counsel for the sixth respondent would also submit that there is no locus standi for the petitioner to file this writ petition. According to him, a third party who is not aggrieved cannot maintain a writ petition and a mere statement of violation of provision of law is not sufficient to enable the third party who is not aggrieved to challenge the order in question. In support of the said submission, the learned counsel for the sixth respondent relied upon the decision rendered in Pattukottai Azhagiri Transport Corporation Limited vs. V.K.Velayutham & Sons, Imperial Motor Services and others reported in (1993) 1 MLJ 249.

¶46

After giving its explanation, the first respondent has categorically pleaded that the sixth respondent has not violated the guidelines of Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India dated 26.06.2020 and office memorandum of Central Pollution Control Board, New Delhi dated 07.01.2020. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nataraja Agencies vs. Secretary, Ministry of petroleum & others reported in (2005) 1 CTC 394 has followed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mithilesh Garg vs. Union of India reported in (1992) 1 SCC 168 and held that a business rival cannot maintain a writ petition. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid decision reads as follows:

¶47

“3. The Supreme Court in Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India, held that a rival businessman cannot file a writ petition,

¶48

7

¶49

( 2026:HHC:15988 )

¶50

challenging the setting-up of a similar unit by another businessman, on the ground that establishing a rival business close to his business place would adversely affect his business interest, even if the setting-up of the new unit is in violation of law. In Mithilesh case, cited supra, the Supreme Court followed its own decision in Rice and Flour Mills v. N.T. Gowda, wherein it was held that a rice mill-owner has no locus standi to challenge under Article 226, the setting up of a new rice-mill by another even if such setting up be in contravention of Section 8(3)(c) of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 because no right vested in such an applicant is infringed. 4. In the present case, the only grievance of the appellant is that if the fourth respondent is permitted to set up her retail outlet within one kilometer radius of the appellant's outlet, his business interest would be adversely affected. In our opinion, the appellant has no locus standi at all to complain against the setting up of a rival retail outlet by the fourth respondent, near his place of business, on the ground that would affect his business interest, inasmuch as the damage, if any, suffered thereby was damnum sine injuriadamage without infringement of legal right. In our opinion, this will only result in promoting competition among the traders, which is good for the consumers. Merely because some of the customers may switch over to the rival retail outlet does not mean that public interest will suffer rather, in our opinion, it will benefit the consumers because, when there is competition, the businessmen are compelled to provide better quality products at reasonable rates.”

¶51

The aforesaid decision has also been followed in the case of Palani Murugan

¶52

8

¶53

( 2026:HHC:15988 )

¶54

Agencies vs. District Collector reported in (2005) 1 LW 792 and P.Selvi vs. District Magistrate & Others reported in AIR 2021 MAD 27. In the case on hand, admittedly the petitioner is having a petroleum filling station in the very same area where the proposed petroleum outlet is likely to be established by the sixth respondent. Being a competitor as held in the aforesaid decisions, the present writ petition is not maintainable.

¶55

The petitioner is a third party to the impugned no objection certificate. A mere violation of provision of law is not sufficient to enable the third party to challenge the impugned No Objection Certificate. This Court in its decision namely Pattukottai Azhagiri Transport Corporation Limited vs. V.K.Velayutham & Sons, Imperial Motor Services and others reported in (1993) 1 MLJ 249 reiterated the said proposition which reads as follows:

¶56

“19. In the Nogar Rice and Flour Mills and Ors. v. N. Teekappa Gowda & Brothers and Ors. , it was held that a rice mill owner had no locus standi to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the setting up of a new rice mill by another, even if it was in contravention of Section 8(3)(c) of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958), because no right vested in such a person was infringed. The position was reiterated in Nasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed. It was held that a rival in trade, in that case a cinema theatre owner, had no locus standi to invoke the special jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶57

Following the said rulings, a Full Bench of this Court held in M.L. Krishnamurthy v. The District Revenue Officer, Vellore (1989)2 LW. 442, that an existing rice mill owner was not a person aggrieved, when permit or licence under

¶58

9

¶59

( 2026:HHC:15988 )

¶60

the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act was granted to another person, for entitling him to file a writ petition challenging the grant. In Mithilesh Garg, etc. v. Union of India and Ors. etc. etc. , already referred to in this judgment, the Apex Court has quoted in extenso the observations made by Sarkaria, J., in J.M. Desai's case , and reiterated the proposition. In the circumstances, the petitioner is not a person aggrieved to maintain the writ petition against the grant of permit to the first respondent with curtailment.”

¶61

(ii) M/s Vivek Auto Mobiles, Ratlam vs. State of H.P. &

¶62

Anr.3³ . Relevant paras are as follows:-

¶63

“THE petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by NOC dated 15.11.2018 issued by Collectorcum-District Magistrate, Ratlam in favour of the Respondent No. 2 for opening a new retail out let over the land Survey No. 1116/1/2 situated in Village Shivgarh, Tehsil Sailana, District Ratlam.

¶64

(2). The petitioner is already having a retail out let in the same vicinity since 1991. The petitioner is apprehending that if new retail out let is opened within the closed vicinity, then his business and profit may be affected. According to the petitioner he is working in this field since 1991 by establishing petrol retail out let. The Respondent No. 2 submitted an application under 114 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 for obtaining NOC from the District Magistrate. Vide order dated 15.11.2018, the District Magistrate has granted the permission.

¶65

(5) … … … Even otherwise the petitioner being a dealer of Indian Oil Company cannot have a monopoly in the area and if other Oil Company

¶66

3Writ petition No.2786 of 2019, decided on 27.02.2019 (High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore.)

¶67

10

¶68

( 2026:HHC:15988 )

¶69

wants to operate fuel station looking to the business prospects, then the petitioner cannot have object. Even one is having right to do business according to his choice”. …

¶70

(iii) Shaheed Ashwani Kumar Chandel Filling Station, Berthi (Dharoti) vs. Union of India & Ors⁴ :-

¶71

“3. In December, 2023, petitioner came to know that respondent BPCL has applied for No Objection Certificate to respondent No.3 i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur, for setting up new Retail Outlet just adjacent to Retail Outlet of petitioner at village Dharoti, Post Office. Berthi, in Village Sunhani. Being aggrieved by opening of new Retail Outlet in the vicinity of Retail Outlet of the petitioner, she submitted an application on 30.12.2023 to respondent No.3. Besides above, petitioner herein also made complaint to Divisional Commissioner Mandi, who, vide communication dated 6.1.2024 sent a request to respondent No.3 to look into the matter. But since no steps were taken by said authorities to stop opening of new Petrol Pump at Sunhani, petitioner vide communication dated 12.3.2024, applied for certain information under Right to Information Act, 2005. Though, no response was received by petitioner to the aforesaid request sent by her, but it came to be revealed to some other person in response to an application filed under Right to Information Act, 2005, that BPCL has allotted Retail Outlet in favour of respondent No.7, In the aforesaid background, petitioner herein has approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for following main reliefs:

¶72

“(i) That the impugned No Objection Certificate dated 16.1.2024 available in Annexure P-6 may very kindly be quashed and set aside with directions to the respondents not to allow opening of retail outlet at the place in question being

¶73

4CWP No.2776 of 2024, decided on 19.11.2024 (H.P. High Court)

¶74

11

¶75

( 2026:HHC:15988 )

¶76

contrary to all norms meant for the purpose.

¶77

(ii) That Letter of Intent with respect to which the petitioner could not lay her hands despite best efforts and even after resorting to RTI, may very kindly be summoned from the respondents and thereafter, the same may also very kindly be quashed and set aside in the interest of law and justice.”

¶78

Similarly, this court having taken note of approach adopted by petitioner coupled with the fact that on account of opening of new Retail Outlet at Village Sunhani, there will be more competition inter se various Retail Outlets set up in the area including that of the petitioner, this court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Goel, learned senior counsel for respondent No.7, that the petition has been filed solely with a view to oust private respondent so that competition being faced by petitioner is scuttled, which may not be in the interest of public at large.

¶79

Hon'ble Apex Court in Nagar Rice & Flour Miills & Ors. v. N. Teekappa Gowda & Bros. & Ors. 1971 AIR 246, has held that that it is not permissible for a competitor to seek to prevent a rival from exercising their right to carry on business. Relevant para of aforesaid judgment is reproduced herein below:

¶80

“Section 8 (3) (c) is merely regulatory: if it is not complied with the appellants may probably be exposed to a penalty, but a competitor in the business cannot seek to prevent the appellants from exercising their right to carry on business, because of the default, nor can the rice mill of the appellants be regard as a new rice mill. Competition in the trade or business may be subject to such restrictions as are permissible and are imposed by the State by a law enacted in the interests of the general public under Art. 19 (6), but a

¶81

12

¶82

( 2026:HHC:15988 )

¶83

person cannot claim independently of such restriction that another person shall not carry on business or trade so as to affect his trade or business adversely. The appellants complied with the statutory requirements for carrying on rice milling operations in the building on the new site. Even assuming that no previous permission was obtained, the respondents would have no locus standi for challenging the grant of the permission, because no right vested in the respondents was infringed.”

¶84

(iv) Gulzar Kissan Sewa Kendra vs. Hindustan

¶85

Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Ors⁵ :-

¶86

“2. The brief facts of the case as are necessary for the adjudication of the present case are that the petitioner runs retail outlet i.e. Petrol pump, in the border area of Punjab and Himachal Pradesh at village Murthal in District Pathankot. This Petrol Pump was established in the year, 2012. The respondents No. 1 and 2 advertised various locations for setting up of Petrol Pumps in the State of Himachal Pradesh including in the Districts Kangra. One of the such site locations was for “within 4 km of Kathgarh Shiv Mandir on Kathgarh Indora Road”.

¶87

According to the petitioner, the identified location is only 500 metres from the Petrol Pump of the petitioner and as such in violation of the norms and guidelines issued for this purpose by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (for short 'MORTH'), which clearly provide that distance between two petrol pumps should not be less than 1000 metres. It is also averred that the approved site offered by respondent No. 3 does not fall within the location as advertised.

¶88

5CWP No.308 of 2019, decided on 22.11.2022 (H.P. High Court)

¶89

13

¶90

( 2026:HHC:15988 )

¶91

Thus, what stands established on record is that the site offered by the third respondent is strictly in accordance with the advertisement and the petitioner being a business rival has only un-necessarily sought to delay and if not hamper the allotment to be made in favour of the third respondent.

¶92

As observed above, the petitioner is a business rival and cannot maintain a writ petition as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mithlesh Garg vs. Union of India (1992) 1 SCC 168, wherein it was held that a rival businessman cannot file a writ petition challenging the setting up of similar unit by another businessman on the ground that establishing the rival business close to his business would adversely affect his business interest, even if the setting up of the new unit is in violation of law.

¶93

In the instant case, the only grievance of the petitioner is that if the third respondent is permitted to set up his retail outlet within 500 metre radius of the petitioner's outlet, his business interest would be adversely affected.”

¶94

The ratio of above decisions is squarely

¶95

applicable to the facts of instant case. Petitioner is a third party to the litigation. He is running the retail outlet in the near vicinity of retail outlet in question. Despite the fact that petitioner is a business rival of respondent No.7, he has not even bothered to even indicate in his writ petition, his business or the fact that he is himself running a petroleum retail outlet in the near vicinity of the retail outlet in question.

¶96

14

¶97

( 2026:HHC:15988 )

¶98

For all the above reasons, the writ petition

¶99

fails on merits and even otherwise is not maintainable. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, to also stand

¶100

disposed of.

¶101

Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 12, 2026 Judge yogesh

Lalit Pathak v. Deputy Commissioner and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalit Pathak v. Deputy Commissioner and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chander Pal Aggarwal and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

Makholi Ram Vs the State of Hp and Others

Mahender Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Priya Saklani and Another Vs the State of Hp and Others

Sunil Verma and Another Vs State of Hp and Others

Vinod Kumar Chopra Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Another