2026:CGHC:6707-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 118 of 2026

1 - Jaideep Singh Bhadauriya S/o Late Dheeraj Singh Bhadauriya Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Tongpal Tehsil - Tongpal District Sukma Chhattisgarh

2 - Smt. Simmi Bhadauriya W/o Hardip Bhadauriya Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Tongpal Tehsil - Chindgarh P.S. Tongpal District -

Sukma Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Sector 19, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector (Food) Sukma And Licensing Authority, Sukma District Sukma Chhattisgarh SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA 3 - Additional Collector Sukma Composite District Office Building, SISTLA NEELIMA Kumharras, Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.02.06

4 - Sub-Divisional Officer Sukma District - Sukma Chhattisgarh

5 - Commissioner Bastar Division Bastar District Bastar Chhattisgarh 6 - Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Through Its Deputy General Manager, HPCL, 4th Floor LIC Investment Building, Phase- 2, Opposite EPF Office, Pandri, Raipur Chhattisgarh 7 - Shailendra Singh Bhadoriya S/o Nathu Singh Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Tongpal, Tahsil Tongpal, District Sukma Chhattisgarh

8 - Tahsildar Tongpal District Sukma Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Appellants :Mr. Varun Sharma along with Shri Krishna Tandon, Advocates.

For Respondents/State :Mr. Praveen Das, Addl. Advocate General.

For Respondent No.6 :Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

06.02.2026

1. Heard Mr. Varun Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants. Also heard Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the Respondents/State and Mr.

Sourabh Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.6.

2. The present Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated

11.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 6138/2025 whereby, the Writ Petition was dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches, availability of alternative statutory remedy, lack of locus to challenge the dealer selection and issuance of letter of intent in favour of Respondent No.7 and absence of merit in the challenge to grant of No Objection Certificate.

3. Learned counsel for the Appellants submits that the impugned order dated 11.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the material available on record, inasmuch as the learned Single Judge failed to consider that the legality of diversion and allotment of the land offered by Respondent No. 7 was itself under challenge and subject to enquiry pursuant to the directions issued by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(C) No.3195/2022 and affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which directions have not been duly complied with, as reflected from the subsequent order of the Collector calling for enquiry into the alleged fraudulent allotment of Government abadi land. It is further submitted that dismissal of the Writ Petition on the ground of lack of locus is unsustainable, as Appellant No.2 was a participant in the dealer selection process and Appellant No.1 was pursuing the matter on her behalf. It is contended that the rejection of the Appellants’ complaint by HPCL and issuance of NOC dated 24.09.2025 in favour of Respondent No.7 are arbitrary and contrary to law, particularly when the suitability, title and legality of the very same land remain under dispute, an earlier NOC had already been issued in favour of another oil company for the same land and the land does not conform to the applicable National Highway norms. He lastly submits that cons