Patna High Court
Rajdeo Rai vs The State Of Bihar Through The Collector on 7 April, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.252 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14413 of 2022
======================================================
Rajdeo Rai, S/o -Late Mahinder Rai, R/o Nawanagar Nizamat, P.S. -
Sahebganj, District- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Collector, Muzaffarpur.
2. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Muzaffarpur.
3. The Senior Deputy Collector (Incharge), District General Administration
Cell Muzaffarpur.
4. M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Through its Chairman and
Managing Director, Having its registered office at 17, Jamshedjee Tata
Road, Mumbai 400020.
5. The Deputy General Manager (Retail) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
Ltd. Begusarai Retail Regional Office, 2nd Floor, Raghunath Place, Har Har
Mahadev Chowk, NH 31, Begusarai.
6. The Sales Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Muzaffarpur.
7. Siddharth Suman S/o Sukan Paswan, R/o Sadhadambar, P.S. Motipur,
District- Muzaffarpur.
8. Arjun Rai S/o Rajdeo Rai, R/o Nawamagar Nizamat, P.S. - Sahebganj,
District- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Parth Gaurav, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, AC to AAG-3 For
HPCL : Mr. Rajeev Prakash, Advocate
Miss Anapurna Prasad, Advocate
Mrs. Bhinita Sinha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 07-04-2025
The learned counsel for the appellant presses I.A.
No. 01 of 2025 seeking condonation of delay of 31 days in
Patna High Court L.P.A No.252 of 2025 dt.07-04-2025
preferring this appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the Interlocutory
Application, the delay of 31 days in preferring this appeal is
condoned.
3. The Interlocutory Application No. 01 of 2025
stands allowed.
4. The appellant, who was Respondent No. 7 in
CWJC No. 14413 of 2022, preferred by one Siddharth
Suman, has challenged the judgment dated 21.01.2025,
setting aside the refusal of the District Magistrate-cum-
Collector, Muzaffarpur in granting No Objection Certificate
to the writ-petitioner (Siddharth Suman) for opening a retail
outlet Petrol Pump.
5. It appears that the writ-petitioner had
approached the High Court for a direction to the
Respondent No. 2 to pass an order on his application for
grant of No Objection for opening of retail outlet Petrol
Pump.
6. During the pendency of the writ petition, the
refusal of the Collector in granting No Objection was
Patna High Court L.P.A No.252 of 2025 dt.07-04-2025
brought on record.
7. No Objection was refused to be given by the
Collector on the sole ground of the appellant and another
having filed a Partition Suit with respect to a property
measuring approximately 11.51 acres, of which the leased
land to the writ-petitioner was a part.
8. The contention of the writ-petitioner before the
learned Single Judge was that the land in question was
purchased by one Dukhit Rai, after whose demise, his two
sons, namely, Uma Shankar Rai and Hari Shankar Rai
inherited the property. They had entered into a lease
agreement with Siddharth Suman (writ-petitioner) for an
area of 0.45 acres out of a parcel of land measuring about
1.22 acres. The appellant and another associate of his are
stated to be distant relatives of Dukhit Rai, who had
purchased the property.
9. The learned Single Judge found that the
Collector was not justified in rejecting the No Objection
Certificate sought by the writ-petitioner merely on the
ground of pendency of a Partition Suit which would
normally take a long time to be concluded before a Court of
Patna High Court L.P.A No.252 of 2025 dt.07-04-2025
law. Even otherwise, the learned Single Judge was of the
view that even if the appellant/Respondents in the writ
petition succeeded in the Partition Suit, their cases would
not be prejudiced in any manner whatsoever as the larger
chunk for which the Partition Suit has been filed is for an
area of 11.51 acres, whereas the leased premises, on the
strength of which No Objection is being sought by the writ-
petitioner, is only 0.45 acres.
10. Considering this aspect of the matter and
taking into account that the pendency of a Partition Suit was
the sole ground for the Collector to refuse grant of No
Objection to the writ-petitioner for opening the retail outlet
of Petrol Pump, the order was set aside and remanded to the
Collector to take a fresh consideration on the matter in
consonance with the observations made in the impugned
judgment.
11. While assailing the impugned judgment, Mr.
Parth Gaurav, learned Advocate raised two objections,
which are being noted for the purposes of being rejected.
12. The first contention of the appellant is that the
judgment does not offer an open remand but with a
Patna High Court L.P.A No.252 of 2025 dt.07-04-2025
condition that the observations shall be taken into
consideration by the Collector while taking a fresh call on
the issue. This only forecloses the contentions of the
appellant.
13. The second argument raised on behalf of the
appellant is that with the conditional remand of the case to
the Collector, the learned Single Judge has put his seal of
approval on the correctness of the execution of the Lease
Deed in favour of the writ-petitioner.
14. Both the grounds are not tenable for the
reasons that have been explained earlier.
15. There is no merit in this appeal.
16. The appeal stands dismissed.
(Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ)
(Partha Sarthy, J)
P.K.P./-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 08.04.2025
Transmission Date
