K. Lokesh, Vs National Highways Authority of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

K. Lokesh, Vs National Highways Authority of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief — the petition was disposed of without quashing Annexure-A or Annexure-B; all contentions were left open for testing by the authorities at the completion-certificate stage, with directions that the norms/guidelines (Annexure-D) and the petitioner's objections be considered.

Issue for consideration

Whether the approval (Annexure-A) for the fifth respondent's retail fuel outlet complies with the location conditions in Appendix-I / Norm 2.2 of the Ministry's Guidelines/Norms — 300 meters from the intersection with any category of road (and median gap) and 1000 meters between fuel stations on a divided carriageway. +2 more

Court's answer

The fifth respondent cannot claim equities in the event final approval is not given by the National Highways Authorities or any adverse order is passed by the authorities.

Ratio / Principle

At this stage it would not be appropriate to enter into the merits of the contentions, since Annexure-A is only an 'In principle' approval of the competent authority, subject to the conditions mentioned in that communication.

Key takeaways

Intervention at this stage would be premature: the fifth respondent is yet to complete his project before the Completion Certificate may be granted under Annexure-A, which has been issued only at a preliminary stage.ratio¶56
Under point 2.0(ii) of the conditions in Annexure-A, final formal permission is still required to be obtained, subject to a certificate by the Project Director, NHAI Project Implementation Unit, Hassan, that construction has been carried out in compliance with the approval.ratio¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (S Sunil Dutt Yadav J.), WP No. 16502 of 2024 (GM-RES), ord. dt. 08.07.2025: An existing NH-75 fuel-outlet franchisee sought certiorari under Arts. 226/227 against (i) NHAI's approval order dt. 29.09.2023, No. NHAI/RD-BNG/23021/448/2023-24/2055 (Annexure-A), permitting respondent no.3 (IOCL) to establish a retail fuel outlet at KM 103.385–103.430, Sy.No.41/7, Tavarekere Village, Bellur Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya, allegedly violating Appendix-I / Norm 2.2 of the MoRT&H Guidelines/Norms (300 mts from intersection; 1000 mts spacing on divided carriageway), noting NHAI's earlier rejection dt. 27.03.2023 on the 300-metre ground, and (ii) the District Magistrate's NOC dt. 14.02.2024 (Annexure-B). Held: adjudication premature — Annexure-A is only an 'In principle' approval subject to conditions; final formal permission is pending, contingent on the Project Director's (NHAI PIU Hassan) compliance certificate, and respondent no.5's project is incomplete; respondent no.5 cannot claim equities if final approval is refused or an adverse order passes; the Highway authorities and respondent no.3 must bear in mind the binding guidelines/norms (Annexure-D) and specifically address the petitioner's contentions while considering the Completion Certificate; all contentions kept open, observations declared non-conclusive. Petition disposed of.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:24716 WP No. 16502 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

WRIT PETITION NO. 16502 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

K. LOKESH,

S/O KRISHNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT KARADA HALLI MELLAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571418.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. B O CHANDRA SHEKAR., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by PRAKASH N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, BESIDE NAGASANDRA METRO STATION, BENGALURU-560073. REP.BY ITS MANAGER (TECHNICAL)

THE PROJECT DIRECTOR,

NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, HASSAN -573210.

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMTED MYSORE DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.L35/A, 1ST FLOOR, B N ROAD, MYSORE TRADE CENTRE,

OPP. KSRTC BUS STAND, MYSORE 570001.

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:24716 WP No. 16502 of 2024

HC-KAR

REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR.

DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MANDYA DISTRICT, OFFICE OF DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MANDYA-571401.

SRI. NAGARAJA T S S/O SIDDAPPA T C AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT TAVAREKERE VILLAGE NAGAMANGALA TALUK BELLUR HOBLI MANDYA DISTRICT-571 418. (R5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 16.10.2024)

UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS S & R (P & B) SECTION TRANSPORT BHAVAN NO.1, PARLIAMENT STREET NEW DELHI-110 001.

(R6 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 08.07.2025) …RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. AJAY PRABHU M., ADVOCATE, SRI. SHOBHITH N SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI. UDAYA PRAKASH MULIYA, ADVOCATE FOR R3;

SRI. SHOBHITH N SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;

R4 SERVED;

SRI. K G KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5;

CGSC FOR R6)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE R1 IN FAVOUR OF R3 FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF A RETAIL FUEL OUTLET BY THE SIDE OF NATIONAL HIGHWAY NO. 75, BENGALURU - MANGALORE AT KM 103.385 TO 103.430 IN SY. NO. 41/7 OF TAVAREKERE VILLAGE, BELLUR HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT PURSUANT TO APPROVAL ORDER DATED 29/09/2023

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:24716 WP No. 16502 of 2024

HC-KAR

BEARING NO. NHAI/RD-BNG/23021/448/2023-24/2055 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the approval granted by the first respondent in favour of the third respondent for establishment of a Retail Fuel Outlet by the side of National Highway No.75, Bengaluru-Mangaluru at KM 103.385 to 103.430 in Sy.No.41/7 of Tavarekere Village, Bellur Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District as per Annexure 'A'. The petitioner has also sought for quashing of the 'No Objection Certificate' dated 14.02.2024 issued by the fourth respondent in favour of the third respondent as per Annexure 'B'.

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a Franchisee of Fuel Outlet on National Highway No.75 and the proposed Fuel Outlet of respondent no.5 is in violation of Appendix-I to the Notification issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways relating to the 'Guidelines/Norms for

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:24716 WP No. 16502 of 2024

HC-KAR

grant of permissions for construction of access to Fuel Stations, Wayside amenities, connecting roads, other properties, Rest Area Complexes and such other facilities.'

It is submitted that on an earlier occasion, the National Highways Authority of India on 27.03.2023 had rejected the proposal for opening of a Retail Fuel Outlet to the 5^th respondent on the ground that distance from the intersection of 300 meters was not maintained.

It is submitted that despite the same, the present letter/intimation as per Annexure-A has been issued though there is no change in the circumstances.

It is pointed out that in terms of Norm 2.2 - Location Norms on Rural stretches of National Highways, the twin conditions required in the facts of the present case is: 1) 300 Meters distance from the intersection with any category of road and median gap; 2) that the distance between two fuel stations on Undivided Carriageway is 300 meters and Divided Carriageway is 1000 meters.

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:24716 WP No. 16502 of 2024

HC-KAR

It is further submitted that, the Carriageway being divided, Carriageway of 1000 meter distance between the petitioner and 5^th respondent Outlet is not satisfied and also the distance of 300 meters from intersection is not satisfied and hence the present petition has been filed.

Various contentions have been raised including locus-standi of the petitioner to file the present petition.

It would not be appropriate at this stage to enter into the merits of the contentions taking note that Annexure-A is only in the nature of access to the National Highway. Point no.2.0 of Annexure-A makes it clear that the recommendations by the National Highways Authority of India is only "In principle" approval of the competent authority subject to conditions mentioned in the said communication. Point no.2.0.(ii) of the conditions at Annexure 'A' would mandate that final formal permission is required to be obtained which is subject to certificate by the Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Project Implementation Unit, Hassan, to the effect that construction has been carried out in compliance with the approval by the Highway Administration.

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:24716 WP No. 16502 of 2024

HC-KAR

However, it is made clear at point no.2.0.(ii) that the proposal for completion certificate after construction of access road as per the approved proposed layout plan is to be made. Point no.2.0.(i) would indicate that the 4^th respondent oil company is directed that access to the Retail Outlet is only from the service road and not from the main Carriageway.

It is to be noticed that the 5^th respondent is still to complete his project before Completion Certificate may be granted in terms of Annexure-A, while it would be premature at this stage to intervene in the matter insofar as Annexure-A being only issued at a preliminary stage of the project.

All contentions raised by the petitioner are still to be tested by the authorities after the 5^th respondent obtains approval by the National Highways Authorities in terms of the conditions at Annexure-A after forming the service road as indicated in the letter of provisional approval.

Needless to state, the 5^th respondent cannot claim equities in the event final approval is not given by the National Highways Authorities as could be seen from the document at Annexure-A. In the process of granting approval, the Highways

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:24716 WP No. 16502 of 2024

HC-KAR

Authorities and the respondent no.3-Company have to bear in mind the existing regulations and binding nature of guidelines/norms issued by Ministry of Transport and Highways at Annexure-D and take a stand specifically after taking note of the contentions raised by the petitioner in the present case.

It is made clear that the 5^th respondent cannot claim equities in the event of any adverse order being passed by the authorities. The objections raised by the petitioner as noticed

are matters to be taken note of by the authorities while granting the Completion Certificate. All contentions are kept open. Observations made must not be construed to be conclusive findings.

Accordingly, the petition is disposed off.

Sd/(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

NP