The main legal point established in the judgment is that the resolution of the Indian Road Congress is directory and does not override the fundamental right to carry on business. Additionally, the judgment emphasizes the importance of following principles of natural justice in administrative decisions.

JUDGMENT :

S.K.Mishra, J.

This judgment arises out of two writ petitions, which were heard together today. In the earlier writ petition being W.P.(C) No.7336 of 2016, the petitioner-Rabinarayan Swain, being a dealer for retail outlet of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, operating in the name and style of “Swarnalata Filling Station”, has prayed that appropriate order be passed directing the Collector, Jajpur, opposite party no.2, not to issue the No Objection Certificate or permission or not to proceed further to open retail outlet in Village Byree under Darpan Tahasil in the district of Jajpur under Khata No.1268/278 (Old Khata N.523) Plot No.2252 and 2253 in favour of any person on the ground that it violates the resolutions of the Indian Road Congress. An interim order was passed in his favour on 5.5.2016.

In the later case, the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as the “IOCL” for brevity) has prayed in W.P.(C) No.6786 of 2017 seeking a mandamus against the opposite parties, more particularly against opposite party nos.1 and 2 for quashing Annexure-8 through which the opposite party nos.1 and 2 cancelled the NOC granted in favour of the petitioner company.

2. The facts are not in dispute. Rabinarayan Swain has been operating the afore-described Petrol Pump since long in the same area. On 26.6.2014, the IOCL released an advertisement for appointment of dealership for Kisan Seva Kendras (Village Retail Outlet) for various places of Odisha including the location of Chhatia-Bayree in the district of Jajpur. In response to the advertisement issued by the petitioner, opposite party no.4, who is opposite party no.5 in the earlier writ petition, had applied for the same and after completion of selection process he was selected for allotment of Kisan Seva Kendra at Byree.

3. On 18.8.2015, i.e. after the selection procedure was over, the Sr. Divisional Retail Sales Manager issued a letter of intent in favour of opposite party no.4. The said Sr. Officer of the petitioner on 19.10.2015 requested the Collector, Jajpur for issuance of No Objection Certificate in favour of the Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (MD), Bhubaneswar. On 3.3.2016, the Addl. District Magistrate, Jajpur, opposite party no.2 in W.P.(C) No.6786/2017, after obtaining all statutory clearance from different departments having verified the documents produced by the petitioner issued No Objection Certificate in its favour. The department of Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization, Kolkata issued/granted the Explosive License after enquiry in favour of the petitioner on 28.3.2016. On the same day, letter of appointment was issued in favour of opposite party no.4. On that date, the dealership agreement was executed between the IOCL and opposite party no.4 and sanction amount was released in favour of opposite party no.4. On that day itself the IOCL received notice from this Court in the earlier writ petition, i.e. W.P.(C) No.7336/2016. On 6.2.2017, opposite party no.2 allegedly without issuing any notice to show cause, without affording any reasonable opportunity of hearing, cancelled the No Objection Certificate issued in favour of the IOCL.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the following questions arise for consideration in these cases:-

(a) Whether the petitioner, Rabinarayan Swain, who owns a retail outlet, a writ petition to quash LOI in favour of opposite party no.4, is maintainable ?

(b) Whether the resolution of the Indian Road Congress has mandatory effect or is simply directory ?

(c) Whether opposite party nos.1 and 2 in the later application have violated the principles of natural justice while cancelling the No Objection Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner ?

(d) Whether the objections raised by the owner of another Petrol Pump and decision taken by the authorities to cancel the No Objection Certificate should be revoked ?.

5. As far as the first issue is con