Madras High Court
Ananda Selvi vs The District Revenue Officer on 10 June, 2025
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
W.P.No.36820 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.No.36820 of 2024
Ananda Selvi .. Petitioner
vs
1. The District Revenue Officer
Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.
2. The Divisional Engineer
State Highways, Avinasi
Tiruppur District.
3. The Territory Manager
M/s.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Coimbatore.
4. Rajagopal .. Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
seeking a writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondents 3 herein from
setting up a retail outlet viz., MS/HSD Outlet at Survey No.556/2
situate at Cheyur Main Road, Panthampalayam, Avinashi Taluk,
Tiruppur District.
Page No.1 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:52:22 pm )
W.P.No.36820 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Govi Ganesan
For Respondents : Mr.G.Velu
Additional Government Pleader
for R1
Mr.E.Veda Bagath Singh
Special Government Pleader
for R2
Mr.Mohammed Fayaz Ali
Standing Counsel
for R3
Mr.Nambi Aroon
for R4
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of
mandamus, forbearing the third respondent from setting up a retail
outlet at Cheyyur Main Road, Avinashi Taluk, Thiruppur District.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was awarded a retail
outlet dealership by M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited at
Cheyyur Main Road. The third respondent wanted to set up a new
retail outlet at Cheyyur Main Road and the fourth respondent was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:52:22 pm )
allowed to set an outlet which is hardly 76 meters from the outlet
belonging to the petitioner.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that such permission
granted by the third respondent based on the No Objection Certificate
(NOC) given by the first respondent is in violation of G.O.Ms.No.25,
Highways and Minor Ports (HN.2) Department dated 24.02.2022 and
G.O.Ms.No.121, Highways and Minor Ports (HN.2) Department, dated
12.09.2023.
4. The first respondent, who is the Authority who granted NOC,
has filed a counter affidavit and has taken a stand in paragraph 5 that
the distance between two fuel stations on both sides should be 300
meters in the State Highways and the setting up of a new outlet at 76
meters is contrary to the said norms. However, the first respondent
has relied upon the earlier orders passed by this Court and has taken a
stand that the objections given by the petitioner was considered and
only thereafter, the NOC was issued to the third respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:52:22 pm )
5. The third respondent and the fourth respondent have
independently filed counter affidavits along with petitions to vacate the
interim order granted by this Court. They have taken a stand that the
petitioner is a rival dealer and he does not have the locus standi to
question the permission granted to the fourth respondent for the
proposed retail outlet. They have taken a further stand that the first
respondent has issued an NOC for establishing the proposed retail
outlet in line with Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, however, the
petitioner has not chosen to challenge the NOC granted by the first
respondent and has approached this Court by filing a writ of
mandamus, which is not maintainable. That apart, the petitioner wants
to disrupt the commencement of the business of the fourth respondent
and such attitude on the part of the petitioner cannot be entertained
and accordingly, they have sought dismissal of this writ petition.
6. Heard Mr.K.Govi Ganesan, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr.G.Velu, learned Additional Government Pleader for the first
respondent, Mr.E.Veda Bagath Singh, learned Special Government
Pleader for the second respondent, Mr.Mohammed Fayaz Ali, learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:52:22 pm )
Standing Counsel for the third respondent and Mr.Nambi Aroon,
learned counsel for the fourth respondent.
7. The only issue that arise for consideration in the present writ
petition is as to whether the petitioner has the locus standi to question
the permission granted to the fourth respondent for the proposed retail
outlet and such challenge could be made by the petitioner even
without questioning the NOC granted by the first respondent in favour
of the third respondent after considering the objections given by the
petitioner.
8. It is quite evident from the typed-set of papers filed by the
first respondent that the petitioner submitted his objection application
dated 06.03.2024 and the petitioner was called for an enquiry and his
written objections was also received by the first respondent.
Ultimately, the first respondent, through proceedings dated
25.10.2024, has overruled the objections given by the petitioner and
issued the NOC in favour of the petitioner through the proceedings
dated 25.10.2024.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:52:22 pm )
9. The petitioner has not chosen to challenge either the refusal
order dated 25.10.2024, issued by the first respondent, or the NOC
dated 25.10.2024 issued to the third respondent under Rule 144 of the
Petroleum Rules, 2002.
10. The only defence that was taken by the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the grant of NOC by the first respondent is in
violation of the Government Orders and to substantiate the same, the
learned counsel placed reliance upon G.O.Ms.No.25 dated 24.02.2022
and G.O.Ms.No.121 dated 12.09.2023.
11. G.O.Ms.No.25 states that the distance between two fuel
stations in State Highways must be 300 meters. After this Government
Order was issued, the Indian Oil Corporation Limited sought relaxation
of the norms fixed in this Government Order. After considering the
same, G.O.Ms.No.121 dated 12.09.2023 was issued by reiterating the
earlier Government Order and refused to grant relaxation sought by
the Indian Oil Corporation Limited. It is therefore clear that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:52:22 pm )
Government Order stipulates 300 meters' distance between two fuel
stations. In spite of such Government Order operating the field, the
first respondent has chosen to give NOC to the third respondent and
no satisfactory explanation is forth coming from the first respondent.
12. The learned counsel for the third respondent placed reliance
upon two orders passed by this Court in this regard. The first order is
in P. Selvi vs. District Magistrate and Ors.1. In this case, the
learned Single Judge, after taking note of the earlier judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, came to a conclusion that the
petitioner, who is a rival businessman, does not have the locus standi
to maintain a writ petition challenging the NOC issued for setting up a
similar unit by another businessman.
13. The next order that was relied upon is in Padma
Highways Filling Station vs. Regional Administrator-cum-Sub
Divisional Magistrate and Ors.2. Even in this case, a similar view
1 2020 SCC Online Mad 5407
2 2022 SCC Online Mad 3516
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:52:22 pm )
was taken by the learned Single Judge. For proper appreciation, the
relevant portions are extracted hereunder:-
“36. The petitioner is a third party to the impugned
no objection certificate. A mere violation of provision
of law is not sufficient to enable the third party to
challenge the impugned No Objection Certificate.
This Court in its decision namely Pattukottai Azhagiri
Transport Corporation Limited vs. V.K.Velayutham &
Sons, Imperial Motor Services and others reported in
(1993) 1 MLJ 249 reiterated the said proposition
which reads as follows:
?19. In the Nogar Rice and Flour Mills and
Ors. v. N. Teekappa Gowda & Brothers and
Ors. , it was held that a rice mill owner had
no locus standi to challenge under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, the setting
up of a new rice mill by another, even if it
was in contravention of Section 8(3)(c) of
the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act,
1958), because no right vested in such a
person was infringed. The position was
reiterated in Nasbhai Motibhai Desai v.
Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed. It was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:52:22 pm )
held that a rival in trade, in that case a
cinema theatre owner, had no locus standi
to invoke the special jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
20. Following the said rulings, a Full Bench
of this Court held in M.L. Krishnamurthy v.
The District Revenue Officer, Vellore
(1989)2 LW. 442, that an existing rice mill
owner was not a person aggrieved, when
permit or licence under the Rice Milling
Industry (Regulation) Act was granted to
another person, for entitling him to file a
writ petition challenging the grant. In
Mithilesh Garg, etc. v. Union of India and
Ors. etc. etc. , already referred to in this
judgment, the Apex Court has quoted in
extenso the observations made by Sarkaria,
J., in J.M. Desai-s case , and reiterated the
proposition. In the circumstances, the
petitioner is not a person aggrieved to
maintain the writ petition against the grant
of permit to the first respondent with
curtailment.?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:52:22 pm )
37. The subject retail outlet having been established
as per the policy of the sixth respondent, the
petitioner cannot invoke the guidelines framed by
the sixth respondent for the purpose of questioning
the establishment of petroleum fuel station by the
sixth respondent. The guidelines of the sixth
respondent relied upon by the petitioner has no
relevance to the case on hand. There is also an
appellate remedy available to the petitioner if
aggrieved by the issuance of the impugned No
Objection Certificate under Rule 150 of the
petroleum Rules 2002 which is extracted hereunder:
?150. Cancellation of no~objection certificate.~
(1) A no~objection certificate granted
under rule 144 shall be liable to be
cancelled by the District Authority or the
State Government, if the District Authority
or the State Government is satisfied, that
the licensee has ceased to have any right to
use the site for storing petroleum:
Provided that before cancelling a
no~objection certificate, the licensee shall
be given a reasonable opportunity of being
heard.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:52:22 pm )
(2) A District Authority or a State
Government cancelling a no~objection
certificate shall record, in writing, the
reasons for such cancellation and shall
immediately furnish to the licensee and to
the licensing authority concerned, copy of
the order cancelling the no~objection
certificate.?
38. The petitioner has not exercised the said
appellate remedy, but instead has chosen to file this
writ petition. When the first respondent has issued
No Objection Certificate for the sixth respondent
based upon various statutory reports that too, when
the petitioner themselves do not claim that they are
bogus, this Court while exercising jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot make
a roving enquiry with regard to those certificates
given by the experts in their respective fields. The
Indian Road Congress Guidelines relied upon by the
petitioner is also not mandatory as held by the
various decisions of this Court.
39. Some of the grounds raised in this writ petition
were also raised in a recent decision dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:52:22 pm )
21.06.2022 rendered by the First Division Bench of
this court is somewhat identical matter in
W.P.Nos.4321 of 2020 & 2951 of 2022 and were
rejected. Even in that decision, the proposed
petroleum outlet was located in the service road
along with another existing petroleum outlet. The
Division Bench of this Court refused to entertain the
challenge to the No Objection Certificate granted for
establishment of a new petroleum retail outlet. It
held as follows:
?25. The argument of learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the third respondent
is about the application of the said
guidelines of MORTH (Ministry of Road
Transport and Highways). It is submitted
that the retail outlet would not be on the
national highways, but on the service lane
and thereby the guidelines of the MORTH
are not applicable. The statement aforesaid
has been supported by learned counsel
appearing for the NHAI. It is stated by him
that the guidelines of MORTH would not be
applicable if the retail outlet is brought on
the service lane, but would apply only when
it is established on the national highways.?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:52:22 pm )
In the instant case also, the petroleum retail outlet
to be established by the sixth respondent is not
going to be located in the highways, but is going to
be located in the service lane.”
14. The learned Single Judge has also taken note of the fact
that the petroleum retail outlet, in that case, is not going to be located
in the Highways, but only in the service lane and hence, apart from
considering the locus standi of the writ petitioner, the learned Single
Judge satisfied himself on the factual matrix of the case.
15. The main thread that runs through the above orders that
were relied upon by the learned counsel for the third respondent
touches upon the locus standi of a third party to challenge the NOC.
While dealing with the same, the consistent view that has been taken
by this Court is that the writ petitioner cannot be a person aggrieved
and more particularly since he is a rival businessman. In the instant
case, this Court is not able to deal with the rejection of the objections
given by the petitioner and also the NOC granted by the first
respondent in favour of the third respondent since the petitioner has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:52:22 pm )
not chosen to question the same. Therefore, even though this Court
finds that the first respondent is not able to give a satisfactory
explanation as to how the NOC was granted in favour of the third
respondent in the light of G.O.Ms.No.25 dated 24.02.2022 and
G.O.Ms.No.121 dated 12.09.2023, the Court is not in a position to go
into that issue, since the NOC granted under Rule 144 of the
Petroleum Rules, 2002, has not been put to challenge.
16. Hence, the only other ground that is available before the
Court touches upon the locus standi of the petitioner, who is a rival
businessman and as a Single Judge, in order to maintain some Judicial
Discipline, I am inclined to fall in line with the earlier judgments of this
Court.
17. In light of the above, this Court holds that the petitioner,
being a rival businessman, cannot question the setting up of a new
unit on the ground that it is in violation of law, since he has no locus
standi to maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:52:22 pm )
18. This writ petition, accordingly, stands dismissed. However,
there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.39743 of
2024 and 19393 & 3809 of 2025 are closed.
10.06.2025
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order.
Internet : Yes/No.
Index: Yes/No.
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
drm
To
1. The District Revenue Officer
Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.
2. The Divisional Engineer
State Highways, Avinasi
Tiruppur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:52:22 pm )
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
drm
10.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:52:22 pm )
