Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 10638
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 8771 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
S S/R O I M CH U I N N I N RA A J P U P A, AGED 55 YEARS D AN O U D G D O A N D D U A N N N A A H S A A L N L D I R H A O V B I L L I L , A GE, HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562110 …PETITIONER
( BY SRI. MAHESH B J., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA Dbyig CitHalAlyIT sHigRnAe dA MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, LCK o AOc RUa N tRi A oTn T O: A FH K I A GH T N R O A .1 N , S P P A O R R L T I A B M H E A N V T A N S , T R EET, NEW DELHI - 110 001.REP. BY PRINCIPLE SECRETARY.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BEERASANDRA, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.
3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, PETROLEUM EXPLOSIVES SAFETY ORGANISATION (PESO), 2ND FLOOR, CITY CENTRE, OPP. HOTEL ROOPA, BALMATTA ROAD, MANGALORE-575 001.
4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU DIVISION, PWD ANNEXE BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001.
5. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 562110
6. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, DEVANAGUNDI VILLAGE PANCHAYATH, ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 562110
7. MANGALORE REFINERY & PETROLEUM CHEMICALS LTD., BLOCK NO.A1, KSSIDC, A.O. BUILDING, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010. A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT 1956
8. SRI. SHASHIKIRAN R.G., AGED MAJOR, NO. 477, SRI SANIDHI, 1ST CROSS, SUBHODAYA ROAD, KAVERI LAYOUT, MARATAHALLI, BENGALURU. 560037 …RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S R DODAWAD, CGSC FOR R1 SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA FOR R2, R4 & R5 SMT. MAMATHA S., SHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R6 SRI. RAYAPPA Y HADAGALI, ADVOCATE FOR R7 SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R8 SRI. SHANTHI BHUSHAN H., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R3)
SD/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
CA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE BEARING NO. A/P/SM/KA/14/12239 DTD 01.01.2025, ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, VIDE ANNX-A. DECLARE THAT THE RETAIL OUTLET/ FUEL STATION INTENDED TO BE ESTABLISHED IN THE PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTY BY THE R-7 AND 8 IS CLEARLY IN VIOLATION OF THE GUIDELINES PRESCRIBED BY THE R-1 DTD 26.06.2020 VIDE ANNX-D. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner in the captioned petition is assailing the 'No Objection Certificate' (for short 'NOC') issued by respondent No.2 enabling respondent No.7 to establish a retail outlet.
The petitioner's grievance is that the authorities have not adverted to the minimum distance to establish a new petrol bunk. Therefore, petitioner in the captioned petition is assailing the NOC on the ground that it is contrary to guidelines and judgment rendered by this Court. Petitioner contends that respondent No.7 cannot establish petrol bunk within a distance of 300 metres and 25 metres from the middle of the road.
The captioned petition is contested by the learned AGA and also by the private respondent Nos.7 and 8 placing reliance on the two Division Bench judgments rendered in W.A.No.50299/2012 and W.A.No.100552/2015.
Heard the counsels on record. Perused the materials and also the judgment rendered by this Court.
The judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.50299/2012, would clearly clinch the dispute between two retail outlets. Paragraph No.2 would be relevant and the same is extracted as under:
"2. The grievance of the petitioner is that she has set up a petrol bunk and vending petrol and now an attempt is made to set up another petrol bunk within 100 metres. If the same is permitted, it leads to competition and both of them would not survive as the capacity of the village is hardly about 800 litres per day. While granting petrol bunk permission, not only the capacity of the village is taken into consideration, persons who pass through the road also is taken into consideration. At any rate, it is only the competition which would benefit the public at large. There is no legal right vested in the petitioner to prevent a competitor from setting up a petrol bunk. The petitioner is an agent of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation. Now, M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited wants to set up a petrol bunk. Therefore, the competition is a must so that public at large would get a fair deal. In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge was right in rejecting the writ petition. We do not find any good ground to interfere with the said order."
The aforesaid observations of the Division Bench, particularly the reasoning extracted in paragraph No.2 of the judgment referred to in paragraph 5 above, clearly delineate the legal position governing disputes of this nature. The Division Bench has unequivocally held that the mere establishment of another petrol retail outlet in proximity to an existing outlet cannot, by itself, be a ground to interfere with the grant of permission under the provisions governing petroleum retailing. The Court has emphasized that considerations such as the viability of an existing outlet or the apprehension of loss of business on account of a competing outlet do not confer any enforceable legal right upon an existing dealer to obstruct the establishment of another outlet. On the contrary, the Division Bench has observed that competition among retail outlets would ultimately operate to the benefit of the consuming public by ensuring better service and fair pricing. The said principle has been reiterated by another Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.100552/2015, wherein it has been consistently held that neither the provisions of the Petroleum Act nor the regulatory framewo
