The court affirmed that only individuals with direct personal impact can challenge administrative decisions such as the issuance of a No Objection Certificate, emphasizing the necessity of locus standi in judicial reviews.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

This writ appeal is filed under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 , by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.15700 of 2025, challenging the judgment dated 29.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. The appellant filed W.P.(C)No.15700 of 2025 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

“a. Call for the records leading to the passing of Ext.P11 No Objection Certificate and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order.

b. To declare that the 4^th respondent does not have the competency to apply for No Objection Certificate under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules as it is not in lawful possession of the property comprised by Resurvey No. 300/6 and 300/7 of Kadampanadu Village having an extent of 12.14 Ares, as the lessee of the property is the 6^th respondent bank as evidenced from Ext.P2 lease deed.

c. To declare that the property having an extent of 12.14 Ares comprised in Resurvey No. 300/6 and 300/7 of Kadampanadu Village is not suitable for starting Rural Retail Outlet in furtherance to Ext.P1 notification as the same does not meet the requirements contemplated in Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 as well as Appendix-1B and Appendix-V of Ext.P1 (b) Brochure”.

3. Going by the pleadings in the writ petition, the appellant is aggrieved by the grant of Ext.P11 No Objection Certificate dated 12.03.2025 issued by the 3^rd respondent District Collector under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 , for the site obtained on lease by the 6^th respondent Mannadi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd, by Ext.P2 lease deed dated 14.08.2023 registered as document No.409/2023, executed by one Smt.Rajamma, to apply for licence for the storage of petroleum products by the 4^th respondent Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. According to the appellant, he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of 10.2 Ares of property comprised in resurvey No.300/5, Block No.15 of Kadampanadu Village of Adoor Taluk with a residential building therein. The 6^th respondent Mannadi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd, by Ext.P2 lease deed had taken on lease 12.14 Ares of property in resurvey No.100/6 and 300/7 of Kadampanadu Village for the purpose of starting petroleum outlet for a period of 25 years from it’s owner Smt.Rajamma. The appellant contends that for the commencement of the business and entering into Ext.P2 lease arrangement, the 6^th respondent had to obtain prior sanction in writing from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Rule 54 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. But the 6^th respondent did not obtain any such sanction to apply for the dealership.

4. On 17.10.2023, the 6^th respondent has been selected as a dealer of the petroleum outlet to be installed in the property covered in Ext.P2 lease deed. The appellant then submitted Ext.P5 representation dated 16.01.2024 before the 3^rd respondent against the sanctioning of the dealership licence for the site proposed, pointing out that his property is adjoining to the proposed site and there is a Panchayat road passing through the north-south direction abutting the proposed site on its western side. Later, the appellant came to know that though the 6^th respondent Bank was selected for the grant of dealership for the petroleum outlet with respect to the site, the application for the grant of No Objection Certificate under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules before the 3^rd respondent