- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39512 WP No. 52195 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.52195 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SHAMANTHA D.S. W/O RAGHU M L AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS OWNER-CUM-DEALER OF GUTHYAMMA FUEL STATION AND KISAN SEVA CENTRE, MAGUNDI, N R PURA TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 160. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASHANTH H.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, M.S.BUILDING DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001 REP BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101. 3. M/S BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39512 WP No. 52195 of 2019 NEAR APMC YARD, NH-66 BAIKAMPADY MANGALURU - 575 011 REPRESENTED BY ITS TERRITORY MANAGER (RETAIL). 4. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER MAGUNDI GRAM PANCHAYAT N.R.PURA TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 160. 5. SRI PRAVINA KUMAR C S/O CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BOMMANAKATTE KALLIHAL POST, BHADRAVATI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 233. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI. N.J. KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED 13.11.2019 ISSUED BYT HE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.3 NOT TO GRANT DEALERSHIP OR LICENSE/PERMISSION TO ESTABLISH A FUEL STATION AT SY NO.79 OF THE SAME MAGUNDI VILLAGE, BELEHONNUR HOBLI, NARASIMHARAJAPURA TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39512 WP No. 52195 of 2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the 'No Objection Certificate' (for short, 'NOC') dated 13.11.2019 (Annexure-A) issued by the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, in favour of the respondent No.5. 2. The grievance of the petitioner as set out in paragraph 6 in the grounds of the writ petition that, if the license issued in favour of the respondent No.5 is accepted, same would cause irreparable loss for the business of the petitioner, since, the Fuel Station which will be installed by the respondent No.5 situates within 130 meters on either side of the existing fuel station. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has presented this writ petition. 3. Heard Sri. Prashanth H.S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39512 WP No. 52195 of 2019 learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondent-State; Sri. Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 and Sri. N.J. Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3. 4. Though Sri. Prashanth H.S., learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that, the petitioner herein has established a Fuel Station and in the event of any other Fuel Station is being installed within radius of 130 meters from either side of the existing Fuel Station, same would cause loss to the business of the petitioner. Accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 5. Per contra, Sri. Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar, learned counsel for the respondent No.5, submitted that the writ petition itself is not maintainable as the petitioner has no legal right to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39512 WP No. 52195 of 2019 challenge the NOC issued by the respondent No.2- Deputy Commissioner in favour of respondent No.5. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 places reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.50299 of 2012 (Chandrakala S. Patil vs. Union of India and others) disposed of on 23.01.2013 and argued that the petitioner has no legal right to challenge the NOC issued by the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner in favour of respondent No.5. 6. Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent- State, sought to justify the issuance of the NOC produced at Annexure- A to the writ petition. 7. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the sole ground on which the writ petition has been filed - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39512 WP No. 52195 of 2019 by the petitioner to challenge the impugned NOC is to prevent Respondent No.5 from installing a Petrol Bunk is the same vicinity. The Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Chandrakala S. Patil, supra, at paragraph 2 held as follows: "2. The grievance of the petitioner is that she has set up a petrol bunk and vending petrol and now an attempt is made to set up another petrol bunk within 100 metres. If the same is permitted, it leads to competition and both of them would not survive as the capacity of the village is hardly about 800 litres per day. While granting petrol bunk permission, not only the capacity of the village is taken into consideration, persons who pass through the road also is taken into consideration. At any rate, it is only the competition which would benefit the public at large. There is no legal right vested in the petitioner to prevent a competitor from setting up a petrol bunk. The petitioner is an agent of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation. Now, M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited wants to set up a petrol bunk. Therefore, the competition is a must so that public at large would get a fair deal. In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge was right in rejecting the writ - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39512 WP No. 52195 of 2019 petition. We do not find any good ground to interfere with the said order." 8. Following the declaration of law made by the Division Bench of this Court, I am of the opinion that, the writ petition does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24