1 2025:CGHC:44031 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4615 of 2025 Smt. Lakshmi Nag W/o Shri Ramanand Nag Aged About 50 Years R/o House No. 48/k Jangarpaal, Kokawada, P.S. Tongpal, District- Sukma Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector Sukma (Food Branch), District - Sukma Chhattisgarh. 2 - Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (Hpcl), Lic Building, Pandri, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Shailendra Singh Bhadauria S/o Shri Natthu Singh Bhadauria Aged About 50 Years R/o Village - Tongpal, Tehsil - Chindgarh P.S. Tongpal District - Sukma Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sarpanch Gram Panchayat - Tongpal, Tehsil - Chindgarh P.S. Tongpal District - Sukma Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Executive Engineer P.W.D., National Highway Division, Sukma Chhattisgarh. …….Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Ms. Soniya Kuldeep, Advocate. For the State : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. GA. For the HPCL : Mr. Ali Asgar, Advocate. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 2 29.08.2025 1. With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally. 2. This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following direction: “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records regarding to the case of petitioner for its kind perusal. 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents no. 1 and 2 to minutely enquire the objections filed by the petitioner and kindly be pleased to quash all the proceedings regarding the installation of the HPCL Petrol pump by the respondent no. 2 for the respondent no. 3 and Hon'ble Court may also be pleased to quash all the NOC's issued by the respondents and other departments regarding the installation of the HPCL Petrol pump of respondent no. 3 in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the petitioner no. 2 to initiate fresh proceedings for the installation of the petrol pump of HPCL in Tongpal by excluding the application of the respondent no. 3 in the interest of justice. 10.4 Cost of petition may also be granted to the petitioner. 10.5 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that by way of this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the arbitrary and illegal action 3 of respondent-authority, by which, respondent No.1/Collector is going to issue No Objection Certificate regarding the establishment of petrol pump by respondent Nos.3/Shailendra Singh. Respondent No.2/HPCL, who by ignoring the objection of the petitioner pertaining to land of respondent No.3 has issued the Letter of Intent (LOI) to respondent No.3 for establishment of the petrol pump and calling the NOC from respondent No.1,4 & 5 and other required departments, in which, respondent No.4 & 5 have already issued the NOC to respondent No.3 without verifying the land / spot, which is contrary to the PPDC of respondent No.2/HPCL and the guidelines of respondent no.5. Learned Counsel further contended that land of respondent no.3 bearing Khasra nos.18/1, 18/5, 19/1, 19/2 & 19/3 is under the dispute and against the PPDC of respondent no.2 and guidelines of respondent no.5, therefore, the petitioner has raised the objection before respondent Nos.1 & 2, however, without deciding the said objection, respondent Nos.1 & 2 are proceeding further regarding the installation of the said petrol pump of the respondent no.3. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/HPCL placed before this Court some document and contended that petitioner has applied for appointment of retail outlet dealership in the State of Chhattisgarh by BPCL published date 28.06.2023 and company name is BPCL and name of the District is Sukma and petitioner (group -1) has already been selected by the BPCL, therefore, 4 petitioner has no locus standi to file this writ petition and challenge the LOI which has been issued in favour of respondent No.3. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents/material available on record. Document place by respondent No.2 before this Court is taken on record. 6. Considering facts of the case, documents available on record, submissions of counsel for the parties, particularly the submission that petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the LOI which has been issued in favour of respondent No.3, this Court is of the considered view that there is no good ground to entertain this writ petition. 7. Accordingly, writ petition is hereby dismissed. CC as per rules. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-