1 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on: 25.08.2025 Pronounced on :26.09.2025 WP(C) No. 194/2025 CM No. 374/2025 NASEER AHMAD BHAT & ANR. … Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Rizwan- Ul Zaman, Advocate Vs. UNION OF INDIA& ORS. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Hakim Aman Ali, Dy AG for R 1-5 Mr. B.A Dar, Advocate for R-6 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE ORDER 1. The petitioners in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution have prayed for the following reliefs:- (a) Writ of Certiorari, thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 03.10.2024, passed the Hon’ble Court of Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir in case titled Shabir Ahmad Dar Vs Deputy Commissioner Kulgam& Ors. (b) Writ of Certiorari, thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned list published by the respondents on 25th of November 2018, whereby the respondent No. 6 has been placed in serial No. 2 5 in Group-I category (OM) for grant of retail outlet dealership at location Damhal-Hanjipora. (c) Writ of Prohibition, thereby prohibiting the official respondents from proceeding ahead as far as case of respondent No. 6 is concerned and from issuing any retail outlet dealership in favour of the respondent No.6. (d) Writ of Mandamus, thereby commanding the official respondents to consider the case of petitioners and other eligible candidate who are figuring under Group-I category for grant of retail outlet dealership. (e) Writ of Mandamus, thereby commanding the official respondents to produce the entire record before this Hon’ble Court. 2. The facts under the shade and cover of which the aforesaid reliefs have been prayed and as are stated in the petition are that respondent/Corporation herein issued an advertisement notice in the year 2018 for grant of dealership for Rural Retail outlets (Petrol Pumps) for various locations in the UT of J&K including one at DamhalHanjipora, Kulgam, and that the petitioner herein being eligible thereof also applied in Group-1 under Open Merit Category and that in a list dated 25.11.2018 framed by the Corporation, the petitioners figured at serial nos. 7 & 8 whereas respondent 6 figured at S.No. 12, however, the said respondent 6 was shown in Group-3, despite having applied in Group-1. 3. It is stated that since the respondent 6 was for unknown reasons shown in Group-3 by the Corporation and the petitioners herein challenged his inclusion therein in the said Group-3 in a civil suit 3 before Sub Judge, Kulgam, on the that the respondent 6 herein could not have been switched to Group 3 from Group-1 under the Brochure of the Corporation regulating the selection of dealers for Regular and Rural Retail Outlets. 4. It is next stated that in the meantime petitioners came to know that the respondent 6 herein had filed a writ petition being OWP No. 338/2019 before this Court, having challenged a communication dated 16.03.2019 issued by the Corporation rejecting his application in Group-1 and treating the same in Group-3 and in the said petition, an interim order came to be passed on 26.03.2019, directing the respondent/Corporation not to allot the dealership to any person till next date, and that after obtaining the said order dated 26.03.2019, on the instructions of the Corporation the respondent 6 withdrew the said petition on 24.06.2020 upon an application filed, with a liberty to file a fresh petition subject to the survival of the cause. 5. It is further stated that the petitioners thereafter approached the Corporation in this regard and came to be informed that the respondent-6 herein stands considered for the allotment of retail outlet pursuant to the order passed on 26.03.2019 in the writ petition filed by the respondent 6. 6. It is also stated that in view of the said developments, the petitioners herein withdrew the suit from the Court of Sub Judge, Kulgam upon an application filed which came to be permitted to be withdrawn on 09.12.2024 in order to enable the petitioners herein to challenge the list dated 25.11.2018, published by the 4 Corporation, besides challenging communication dated 06.11.2024 addressed by Assistant Commissioner Revenue, Kulgam to various agencies/Government Departments for processing and grant of NOC in favour of the respondent 6 herein qua the retail outlet, whereafter the petitioners filed WP(C) 3039/2024 before this Court seeking quashment of the list dated 25.11.2018, treating the respondent-6 in Group-1 as also for prohibiting the official respondents therein from issuing any NOC in this regard in favour of respondent 6. 7. 7. It is further stated that the Court while considering the WP(C) No. 3039/2024 on 31.12.2024, the counsel for the official respondents made a statement that the respondent -6 had also filed another petition being WP(C) 2040/2022 before this Court qua the non- issuance of No Objection Certificate in his favour by the official respondents therein the said writ petition and in a response to the said petition filed by the Deputy Commissioner concerned, it came to be provided that the case of grant of NOC in favour of the respondent -6 stands rejected on 20.09.2022. 8. It is further stated that during the pendency of the said WP(C) 2040/2022, and on 03.01.2025, the counsel for the respondent -6 herein informed the court that the said rejection order dated 20.09.2022, upon being challenged before the Divisional Commissioner in an appeal came to be set aside and consequently the Deputy Commissioner, came to be directed to issue the NOC in favour of respondent-6 herein and in view of the said developments, the petitioners herein withdrew the petition 5 WP(C)No. 3039/2024 and maintained the instant petition calling in question again the list dated 25.11.2018, as also the order of the Divisional Commissioner dated 03.10.2024 besides seeking other ancillary reliefs thereof. 9. 9. The petitioners herein have maintained the instant petition on multiple grounds fundamentally on the ground that the Corporation in the whole process initially reflected the respondent 6 in the list dated 25.11.2018, under Group-3 category at Serial No.12 despite the fact that the said respondent 6 had applied under Group -1 category and that in terms of the clause 6 of the Brochure, if an applicant does not qualify under Group-1, he/she is to be placed in Group-2 and in the event of his or her failure to qualify under the said Group-2, then and only then he or she could be placed in Group-3 and that the respondent-6 in connivance with Corporation was placed in Group-3 in the list dated 25.11.2018, without following the procedure provided in the Brochure and that even the Divisional Commissioner passed impugned order dated 03.10.2024, in the appeal filed by respondent 6 against rejection of his case for grant of NOC in disregard to the facts of the case of the respondent-6 qua the land offered by him to the Corporation for establishment of the retail outlet, and, therefore, both official respondents namely the Corporation as well as the revenue authorities brazenly infringed the fundamental and constitutional rights of the petitioners. 10. Objections to the petition have been filed by the respondent-6 alone wherein the instant petition is being opposed. 6 11. It is stated in the said objections that the answering respondent applied for allotment of retail outlet in question in District Kulgam under Open Merit category, however, the corporation raised an objection with regard to the land documents of the answering respondent and informed that he is not found eligible which decision came to be called in question by him in WP(C) No. 338/2019 and pursuant to an interim direction passed therein, the case of the answering respondent was considered and was allowed participation in the process of selection and consequently on 13.08.2020, the answering respondent upon draw of lots conducted by the Corporation was issued the Letter of Intent qua the Retail Outlet after was found eligible. 12. 12. It is also stated that after the issuance of the said Letter of Intent,certain NOCs’ were required to be obtained by the answering respondent from various authorities/department including Revenue Department, however, the said NOC was not issued in respect of the land in question by the Assistant Commissioner, Revenue compelling the answering respondent to approach Deputy Commissioner, Kulgam, whereupon an inquiry team was constituted on 09.03.2021, which reported that the land under survey No.1507-min offered by the answering respondent is under the possession of his father as per the extract of Girdawari 2018 and that the land measuring 4 kanals is in the name of answering respondent, out of which 1 kanals is proposed for installation of retail outlet. 13. It is further stated that upon failure of the respondents-revenue authorities to issue No Objection Certificate, the petitioner 7 maintained WP(C) No. 2040/2022 before this Court, and in the meantime, the said grant of NOC was rejected in favour of the answering respondent by the ADC Kulgam, whereupon, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner in terms of Rule 154(2) of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 and which appeal came to be allowed and the rejection order passed by the ADC Kulgam dated 20.09.2022 was set aside with a direction to ADC to issue requisite NOC in favour of the answering respondent. 14. It is further stated that the petitioners had earlier filed a civil suit in the matter which came to be withdrawn without seeking any liberty on 09.12.2024, whereafter WP(C) 3039/2024 came to be filed by the petitioners herein which petition as well came to be withdrawn on 03.01.2015 by the petitioners with a liberty to file fresh, and that in regard to the relief sought in the instant petition, the petitioners are strangers and that the answering respondent is entitled to install the retail outlet pursuant of LoI issued by the Corporation in his favour over his proprietary land. 15. It is also stated that the order passed the Divisional Commissioner on 20.09.2022 is legally passed without any infirmity and that the selection of the answering respondent for establishment of the retail outlet has been ordered by the Corporation as per applicable norms. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record produced by the counsel for the respondent 2 & 3. 16. Having regard to the case set up by the petitioners herein, the grievance complained of in the instant petition is that the respondent-Corporation committed irregularity in considering the 8 candidature of respondent 6 herein under Group-3 qua the issuance of retail outlet in question though the petitioners as well as the respondent 6 herein had applied in Group-1 under Open Merit category, while reflecting the names of the candidates in the list dated 25.11.2018 reflected the name of the respondent 6 in Group-3 category in disregard to the regulations contained in the Brochure. 17. It is significant to mention here that the said regulations provide for the guidelines for selection and the allotment of retail outlet for regular as also rural outlets while providing that the applicants would be classified in three groups on the basis of the land offered or land not offered in the application form, and Group-1 pertain to the applicants having the land as owner or obtained on long term lease for a period of 19 years 11 months, whereas Group 2 pertain to the applicants having firm offer for a suitable piece of land for purchase or long term lease for a period of minimum 19 years 11 months and lastly Group-3 comes into play in the event the land offered by applicants in Group 1 & 2 is found not suitable/ not meeting requirements, then the applicants under Group 1 & 2 along with the applicants Group 3 (who do not offer any land) are to be considered together and advised to provide suitable land at the advertised location within a period of 90 days from the date of issuance of intimation letter to the applicants and that in the event the applicants failed to provide any such suitable land within the prescribed period or that the land found not meeting the criteria, the applications would get rejected. 9 18. 9 18. Perusal of the record produced by the counsel for the Corporation would reveal that the respondent 6 herein had been informed by the Corporation through e-mail on 15.02.2019, that he has been declared as a successful candidate in the draw of lots for the outlet in question and consequently submitted his documents along with the security deposit of Rs. 40,000/-, however, the Corporation subsequently informed the respondent 6 on 16.03.2019, that his case does not fall within Group 1 in view of the land offered by him and that as such his candidature would be considered along with others in Group 3 category, aggrieved whereof the respondent 6 filed OWP No. 338/2019, wherein an interim direction came to be passed on 26.03.2019 directing the Corporation not to allot the retail outlet to any person, which writ petition, however, came to be withdrawn by the respondent 6 with liberty to file afresh subject to the survival of the cause on the premise that the Corporation has agreed to redress his grievances. 19. Record would also reveal that the respondent 6 thereafter filed WP(C) 2040/2022, before this Court and impleaded besides the Corporation, the revenue authorities as respondent while seeking directions upon the said revenue authorities to issue necessary NOC in his favour qua the installation of the retail outlet as also a direction upon the Corporation not to cancel the allotment/LOI issued in his favour on 13.08.2020. 20. Record would reveal that during the pendency of the said petition, the issue of land offered by respondent 6 resulted into passing of an order dated 20.09.2022, by Deputy Commissioner, Kulgam, whereby the case of respondent 6 for issuance of NOC qua the land 10 in question covered under Khasra No.1507 came to be rejected, whereafter the respondent 6 preferred an appeal against the said rejection order dated 20-09.2022 before Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir on 02.11.2022 which appeal came to be allowed and the rejection order dated 20.09.2022 came to be set aside with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Kulgam to issue NOC in favour of respondent 6 herein. 21. 21. Perusal of the record would further reveal that the said WP(C)No 2040/2022, an interim order dated 16.09.2022 is as on date occupying the filed in terms whereof, on one hand, Deputy Commissioner Kulgam was directed to file an affidavit and indicate steps taken by him on the request of the respondent 6 herein and petitioner therein for grant of NOC and on the other hand the Corporation was directed not to withdraw the LoI issued in his favour. 22. As has been noticed in the preceding paras, the Deputy Commissioner rejected the issuance of NOC vide order dated 20.09.2022, after the passing of the aforesaid interim order dated 16.09.2022, which order came to be set aside on 03.10.2024 by the Divisional Commissioner upon an appeal filed by respondent-6 with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, to issue necessary NOC in favour of the respondent 6 herein. The said petition is pending before this Court. 23. Since the fate of the candidature of the respondent 6 for allotment of the retail outlet in question has not been so far decided by the respondent-Corporation, finally notwithstanding the issuance of LoI and also that the matter is pending before this Court in WP(C) 11 No. 2040/2022 the petitioners herein cannot be at this stage said to be either the persons aggrieved or to have any locus standi inasmuch as possessed of a right enforceable in law to maintain the instant petition. 24. Viewed thus, the petition is found to be without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR: 26.09.2025 “S.Nuzhat” Whether the order is speaking Yes/No Whether the order is reporting Yes/No