Patna High Court

PrabhakaranversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 17 February 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: A ABHISHEK REDDY

Holding

The petitioner lacks standing, so the writ petition is dismissed.

Summary

Petitioner Prabhakaran filed a writ petition in the Patna High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to cancel a licence granted to private respondents, including Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. The court observed that the petitioner was neither an aggrieved party nor an applicant for the licence in question, rendering him a busybody. Consequently, the petition lacked locus standi and could not be entertained as a writ petition. The court indicated that if the petitioner wished to raise a public cause, he must file a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The writ petition was therefore dismissed, leaving the petitioner free to file a PIL if desired.

Issues considered

Does the petitioner have locus standi to seek a writ of mandamus for cancellation of a licence issued to private respondents?
Is a writ of mandamus appropriate where the petitioner is not an aggrieved party?
Can the petition be converted into a Public Interest Litigation?

Subjects

Writ jurisdiction
Mandamus
Public Interest Litigation
Locus standi
License cancellation
Petitioner not aggrieved

Judgment

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                 Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20353 of 2025
                 ======================================================
                 Prabhakaran Son of Lalan Kumar Deo, Permanent resident of PNB Gali,
                 Beside Rajdarwar Hotel, Police Station and District- Saharsa. Presently
                 residing at J-3/77, Ground Floor, Left side Khirki EXTN, Shiv Kunj, Malviya
                 Nagar, S.O., P.S.- Malviya Nagar, District- South Delhi, Pin- 110017.

                                                                             ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                   Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar through the Commissioner, Kosi Division, Saharsa.
           2.    The District Magistrate, Saharsa.
           3.    The Sub-Divisional Officer, Saharsa.
           4.    The Circle Officer, Kahra, District- Saharsa.
           5.    The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division,
                 Saharsa.
           6.    The Municipal Commissioner, Saharsa.
           7.    The Forest Divisional Officer, Saharsa, Forest Division, Saharsa.
           8.    The C.M.D., Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, 4 and 6 Currimbhay
                 Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001.
           9.    The Zonal Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Zonal Office,
                 Asiyana Chamber, 3rd Floor, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001.
           10. The District Registrar, Saharsa.
           11. The Territory Manager (Retail), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited,
               Barauni, District- Begusarai.
           12. Syed Shamshad Hassain @ Guddu, Son of Late Md. Hasnain, Proprietor of
               Guddu Nazmi Petrol Pump, Bariyahi Road, Near Tola, Police Station and
               District- Saharsa.
           13. Tarrannum, W/o Syed Shamshad Hassain @ Guddu, The allottee of
               Proprietor of Guddu Nazmi Petrol Pump, Bariyahi Road, Near Tola, Police
               Station and District- Saharsa.

                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s   :      Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Adv.
                 For the Respondent/s   :      Mr. Standing Counsel (05)
                 For the State          :      Mr. Kumar Manish, Adv.
                                               Mr. Arun Kumar Prasad, Adv.
                 For the BPCL           :      Mr. Rajeev Prakash, Adv.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   17-02-2026                   A perusal of the pleading made in the present writ

                   petition reveals that the petitioner is neither an aggrieved party
             Patna High Court CWJC No.20353 of 2025(2) dt.17-02-2026
                                                        2/2




                       nor he is one of the applicants who has applied for the RO

                       Dealership. The petitioner appears to a busybody who is seeking

                       cancellation of the license issued in favour of the private

                       respondents herein. The present writ petition in its present form

                       seeking a writ of mandamus cannot be entertained. In case the

                       petitioner is espousing any public cause then he has to file a

                       Public Interest Litigation (PIL).

                                   2. Having regard to the same, the present writ petition

                       is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to file a Public

                       Interest Litigation (PIL) if he is so advised.



                                              (A. Abhishek Reddy , J)
Gauravkr/-

U

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…