Participant in retail outlet selection via draw of lots has locus to challenge rival's site NOCs for guideline non-conformity, unlike business rivals; IRC/MoRTH guidelines non-mandatory on major district roads.

JUDGMENT :

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

Respondents No. 2 & 3 – the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (in short ‘IOC’) advertised various retail outlets of petrol & diesel on 28.06.2023 for State of Himachal Pradesh. One of the advertized locations was “PAONTA SAHIB WITHIN MUNICIPAL LIMIT (NOT ON NH)”. Petitioner and respondent No. 11 were the only two applicants for this retail outlet. Respondent No. 11 was declared successful in draw of lots held on 04.12.2023. Letter of Intent was issued to respondent No. 11 on 12.03.2024. Different agencies of the State granted No Objection Certificates [NOC(s)] for the site offered by respondent No. 11 for establishing the retail outlet. Final NOC under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 was issued by the Deputy Commissioner Sirmour on 02.08.2024. Petitioner, in essence, feels aggrieved against the NOC(s) issued for the site offered by respondent No. 11, hence, this writ petition.

2. Vide an interim order passed in this writ petition on 27.08.2024, respondents were restrained from issuing load in form of supply of diesel and petrol to respondent No. 11 for the retail outlet in question. The order has continued to remain in force. During pendency of the matter, the writ petition was allowed to be amended to enable the petitioner to incorporate certain additional grounds with due opportunity to the respondents to rebut the same. During hearing of the case an application (CMP No. 27021 of 2025) was moved by the petitioner to place on record map depicting the site in question. Response to the application was filed by respondent No. 11, inter alia, placing on record the map of the site offered by him. Application (CMP No. 27021 of 2025) is hereby allowed. Both the maps are taken on record.

3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and considered the case file. For the sake of brevity, the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and the discussion thereupon have been deliberated hereinafter.

4 Consideration

4(i) Respondents have raised preliminary objection to the maintainability of writ petition on following two counts:-

(a) Petitioner is business rival, a third party. He has no locus standi to maintain the writ petition.

(b) Petitioner has concealed material facts in the writ petition. His conduct has been dubious. Petitioner cannot be permitted to invoke equitable jurisdiction of this Court.

4(i)a Business Rival

According to the respondents, petitioner being a business rival, has no locus standi to maintain this writ petition. In support of submission, reliance was placed upon the following decisions:-

(i) Padma Highways Filling Station vs. Regional Administrator-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine Madras 3516. Paragraphs pressed into service are:-

“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.

… … …

26. 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.,

(a) A Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Nataraja Agencies vs. Secretary, Ministry of petroleum & others reported in (2005) 1 CTC 394;

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