Allahabad High Court

KRISHNAKANT RAIversusUNION OF INDIA AND 4 OTHERS

Decided: 17 March 2026
Bench: SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN SARAL SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The petition is dismissed for lack of locus standi and maintainability.

Summary

The petitioner, Krishnakant Rai, challenged a No Objection Certificate (NOC) issued by the District Magistrate, Jhansi, in favour of a private respondent and a subsequent order rejecting his candidature for a BPCL retail outlet. Earlier writ petitions (Writ‑C No.330/2026 and Writ‑C No.36640/2024) were dismissed for lack of maintainability and because the petitioner did not challenge BPCL’s action or the Letter of Intent. The Court held that after the dismissal of the earlier petitions, the petitioner no longer had locus standi to contest the NOC or the rejection order. It further observed that the petitioner could have raised the issue in the earlier filings and therefore the present petition was devoid of merit. Consequently, the petition was dismissed without costs.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner has locus standi to challenge the No Objection Certificate after earlier dismissals
Whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of the earlier filings
Whether the order rejecting the petitioner’s candidature can be quashed at this stage

Subjects

writ petition
locus standi
maintainability
No Objection Certificate
administrative law
BPCL retail outlet

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - C No. - 10041 of 2026

Krishnakant Rai
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union Of India And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arvind Srivastava, Phool Singh Yadav,
Vijay Bahadur Vishwakarma
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Yash Padia

Court No. - 40
HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.

1. Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manoj
Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.1, Sri Yash Padia, learned
counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3 and learned Standing Counsel for State-
respondent.

2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has assailed the No
Objection Certificate issued by the District Magistrate, Jhansi in favour of
respondent no.4 and rejection order dated 18.09.2024 passed by respondent
no.3 whereby candidature of the petitioner has been rejected.

3. The record reveals that petitioner has earlier approached this Court by
filing Writ-C No.330 of 2026 in which this Court has passed the following
order on 12.01.2026:-

"1. Heard Sri N.C. Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Om
Prakash Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing
Counsel for respondents no.1 to 3 as well as Sri Vinay Kumar Khare,
learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent no.4.

2. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-

"(i)issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus by
commanding to respondent no.2/Collector, District Jhansi, to consider
and decide the complaint of petitioner dated 03-10-2024 (annexure
no.12), by providing opportunity of hearing to petitioner, against NOC
report dated 20-11-2024 (annexure no.9) of respondent no.3/S.D.M.
Jhansi, in disputed plot no. 281, Village: Nohra District-Jhanai, State
WRIC No. 10041 of 2026
2

Uttar Pradesh, offered by respondent no.4 for RO Shop/Petrol Pump to
BPCL in proposed location."

3. The petitioner, before this Court, has applied for a retail outlet along
with respondent no.4 before the BPCL (Bharat Petroleum Corporation
Ltd.). The respondent no.4 was selected and was allotted the retail outlet.
The petitioner being unsuccessful has not challenged the action of BPCL,
but has tried to stall the proceedings for the installation of the petrol
pump on the technical ground that the land in question is not identified
and wrong assertion was made by respondent no.4 to whom the retail
outlet has been allotted.

4. This Court finds that without impleading the BPCL as a party and
without challenging the action of BPCL, present writ petition is not
maintainable.

5. Writ petition is misconceived and the same stands dismissed."

4. Perusal of order dated 12.01.2026 passed in Writ-C No.330 of 2026
discloses that petitioner had approached this Court with a prayer that he be
heard by the District Magistrate, Jhansi against the issuance of No Objection
Certificate to respondent no.4. The writ petition of the petitioner has been
dismissed by this Court for the reason stated in paragraph no.3 of the order,
extracted above.

5. We are of the view that once this Court has refused to grant the relief to
the petitioner for being heard by the District Magistrate, Jhansi before
granting No Objection Certificate to private respondent no.4, therefore, after
dismissal of aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner has no locus standi to
challenge the No Objection Certificate issued in favour of respondent no.4.

6. We further find that petitioner has earlier approached this Court by filing
Writ-C No.36640 of 2024 challenging the Letter of Intent issued to
respondent no.4, and the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn by
this Court by order dated 04.02.2025, which order is reproduced herein
below:-

"1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner wishes to withdraw
this writ petition with liberty to file afresh on the same cause of action
with better particulars.

2. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to
file afresh on the same cause of action with better particulars."
WRIC No. 10041 of 2026
3

7. The petitioner, thereafter, has not filed any writ petition challenging the
Letter of Intent issued in favour of respondent no.4.

8. We further find that though petitioner has preferred Writ-C No.36640 of
2024 challenging the Letter of Intent of respondent no.4, which he got
dismissed as withdrawn, and subsequently, he preferred Writ-C No.330 of
2026 wherein he did not choose to challenge the Letter of Intent issued to
respondent no.4, and has only prayed for a direction upon the District
Magistrate to hear the complaint of petitioner before granting No Objection
Certificate to respondent no.4, therefore, we are of the view that present writ
petition praying for quashing of order dated 18.09.2024 rejecting the claim
of petitioner cannot be challenged at this stage as the petitioner could have
very well challenged the same in the earlier writ petition. It is pertinent to
note that this Court while dismissing the Writ-C No.330 of 2026 has
recorded a finding that petitioner being unsuccessful has not challenged the
action of respondent-BPCL, and by recording the said finding, the writ
petition of the petitioner has been dismissed, therefore, the said petition was
dismissed also on the ground that petitioner has not challenged the order
rejecting the candidature of petitioner.

9. In such view of the fact, the writ petition lacks merit and is hereby
dismissed with no order as to costs.

March 18, 2026
Sattyarth
(Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
SATTYARTH ANAND
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…