Allahabad High Court
KULDEEPversusTHE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the petitioner, being a competitor, has no right of audience before the District Magistrate regarding the issuance of the NOC, and the writ petition was dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, a competing dealer, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the District Magistrate not to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to a private respondent selected by Indian Oil Corporation as a dealer. The petition claimed that the selection process was ambiguous and that it prevented the petitioner from applying despite meeting eligibility criteria. The court observed that the issuance of the NOC is a matter between the oil company and the private respondent, and the petitioner, as a competitor, has no right of audience before the District Magistrate on this issue. Consequently, the court found no basis to entertain the writ and disposed of the petition. The petition was therefore dismissed.
Issues considered
- Does the petitioner have locus standi to seek a mandamus directing the District Magistrate not to issue a NOC to the selected dealer?
- Is the District Magistrate's decision to grant a NOC amenable to judicial review in favor of a competing applicant?
Subjects
- writ of mandamus
- No Objection Certificate
- dealer selection
- locus standi
- judicial review
- district magistrate
- competition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 31271 of 2026
Kuldeep
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ramendra Asthana
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Arjun Singh, C.S.C.
Court No. - 21
HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.
HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J.
1. Mr. Ramendra Asthana, learned advocate appears on behalf of
petitioner. Prayer (a) is reproduced below.
"(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the District Magistrate, the respondent no.3 not to pass any
order in the matter of grant of N.O.C. to the respondent no.4 in pursuance
of his Selection as a dealer for retail outlet at location "NH 34 and NH
339 Intersection and M.P. Border on NH 339 (Kaimaha to Nawgaon
Road)."
Mrs. Archana Singh, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. Shrestha
Pratap Singh, learned advocate appear for respondent nos. 1 and 2 (the oil
company). Mr. Sharad Chandra Upadhyay, learned advocate, Standing
Counsel appears for respondent no.3 (the District Magistrate).
2. On perusal of the petition, we think it fit to reproduce below paragraph
20.
"20. That due to aforesaid ambiguity the petitioner could not apply
despite the fact that he fulfills the entire eligibility criteria."
Clearly, petitioner is a competitor, whereas the oil company has selected
private respondent no.4 for being issued the LoI. The oil company has
gone on to apply for 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) from the
administration. The matter of issuance of it does not admit of petitioner
WRIC No. 31271 of 2026
2
having any right of audience before the District Magistrate, he being a
competitor. Mr. Asthana submits, his client's objection to private
respondent being selected has just been dealt with by the oil company.
His client be at liberty to challenge the decision.
3. We do not deem it necessary to notice private respondent no.4, who
Mrs. Singh submits, is Letter of Intent (LoI) holder. Petitioner may find
such relief as is available in law to him. Meanwhile, the writ petition is
disposed of on above observation.
(Arindam Sinha,J.)
(Satya Veer Singh,J.)
September 11, 2026
Mohini
Digitally signed by :-
MOHINI RAI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…