1 2025:CGHC:60269 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6138 of 2025 1 - Jaideep Singh Bhadauriya S/o Late Dheeraj Singh Bhadauriya Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Tongpal Tehsil- Tongpal, District Sukma C.G. 2 - Smt. Simmi Bhadauriya W/o Hardip Bhadauriya Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Tongpal Tehsil- Chindgarh, P.S. Tongpal, District Sukma C.G. (Surname Wrongly Mentioned As Bhadoriya In The Impugned Order) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Sector 19, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur C.G. 2 - Collector (Food) Sukma And Licensing Authority, Sukma, District Sukma C.G. 3 - Additional Collector- Sukma Composite District Office Building, Kumharras, Sukma, District Sukma C.G. 4 - Sub-Divisional Officer, Sukma, District Sukma C.G. 5 - Commissioner, Bastar Division Bastar District Bastar C.G. 6 - Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Through Its Deputy General ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2025.12.17 10:35:54 +0530 2 Manager, H P C L, 4th Floor L I C Investment Building, Phase-2, Opposite E P F Office, Pandri, Raipur C.G. 7 - Shailendra Singh Bhadoriya S/o Nathu Singh Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Tongpal, Tahsil Tongpal, District Sukma C.G. 8 - Tahsildar, Tongpal, District Sukma C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate For State-Respondent no. 1-5 &8 : Mr. Satish Gupta, Government Advocate For Respondent no. 6 : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate For Respondent no. 7 : Mr. Nimesh Kumar Jha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 11.12.2025 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari and set- aside the order dated 18.09.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited refusing to enquire the complaint of the petitioner. 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari and kindly quash the NOC dated 24.09.2025 (Annexure P/2) issued by the Collector (Food) Sukma. 10.3 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus and direct the respondent no. 8 to comply with the order dated 22.09.2025 and duly enquire and conclude the enquiry by passing a reasoned order with regard to the wrongful allotment of abadi land to the respondent no. 7 within a prescribed time period. 3 10.4 To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that respondent no. 6 has issued an advertisement for appointment of dealer of retail outlet of petrol pump for location “ within four kilometers from Maa Durga Temple, Tongpal, on both the sides towards Jagdalpur or towards Sukma, on NH-30” along with other locations. Respondent no. 7 has submitted an application along with petitioner no. 2. He offered the land along with application submitted . According to procedure as provided under the brochure for appointment of dealers, selection of dealers is to be made by draw of lots. Respondent no. 7 was selected on his being identified in draw of lots and accordingly his candidature was further processed. After selection of respondent no. 7 petitioner no. 1 raised grievance before the grievance cell on 07.10.2020 and according to submission of counsel for respondent no. 6, grievance raised by petitioner no. 1 was rejected for want of not enclosing requisite fees of Rs. 5,000/-. The petitioner no. 1 thereafter, has not made any application raising grievance but have filed a writ petition bearing WPC No. 3159 of 2022 raising an objection that the land which is offered by respondent no. 7 is recorded as abadi land in revenue records, therefore, it cannot be used for commercial purpose. The writ petition was disposed of considering that application under Section 172 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 for diversion of the said land is pending consideration before respondent no. 3, accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to respondent no. 2 and 3 to pass appropriate orders on application under Section 172 of the Code of 1959 after due inquiry. The order passed in the writ petition was put to challenge in a special leave 4 to appeal bearing no. 15833/2022 before Hon’ble Supreme Court by respondent no. 7 which was disposed of directing Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) District - Sukma to conclude the inquiry under Section 172 of Code of 1959 at the earliest but not later than two months vide order dated 19.09.2022. According to submission made by learned counsel for respective parties, Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), thereafter, passed an order on an application under Section 172 of the Code of 1959 Annexure P-11 on 19.10.2022 and have diverted the land use, for commercial purpose with certain conditions. The order of Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) is put to challenger in an appeal before the Collector by petitioner no. 1 which came to be dismissed observing that order of Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) is in accordance with law. It is also submitted by respective parties that order passed by Collector is challenged before the Commissioner Bastar, Division- Jagdalpur which is pending consideration. During pendency of this revision, another application was submitted by petitioner no. 1 before the Collector alleging that allotment of land in favor of respondent no. 7 is not in accordance with law which was marked to the Tahsildar for appropriate proceedings. Challenge in this writ petition is to Annexure P-1 whereby the Collector Food Department has issued no objection certificate in favor of respondent no. 6 for establishing petrol pump on the land subject matter of application therein that is the location as advertised by respondent no. 6, subject matter of this writ petition. 3. Mr. Krishna Tandon, learned counsel for petitioner submits that order passed by Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) under Section 172 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 is without conducting any inquiry as directed and, therefore, it is bad in law. He further submits 5 that grant of no objection certificate (NOC) by the Collector (Annexure P-2) on ground that same land is offered by two different applicants in advertisement of two different oil companies one Indian Oil Company (IOC) and other respondent no. 6, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) on the ground that one land cannot be offered by two persons. Lastly he submits that in contempt petition which was disposed of vide order dated 18.01.2024, respondent therein i.e. respondent no. 1 /Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) has made statement that order has been complied with, accordingly, contempt petition was closed, however, there was no compliance as of the order in earlier petition as directed by this Court. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no. 6 Mr. Saurabh Sharma opposes the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner and further submits that petitioner no. 1 had earlier filed an application before redressal grievance cell which was rejected vide order dated 02.12.2020 on technical ground as petitioner did not deposit requisite fees. Petitioner thereafter has not submitted any fresh application for redressal of grievance if any, however, petitioner has filed writ petition bearing WPC No. 3195 of 2022 which was disposed of by this Court on 22.07.2022. He also submits that the main grievance of petitioner in that writ petition was that the offered land is recorded in revenue records as abadi land and, therefore, it cannot be considered for commercial purpose. From the order passed in writ petition no. 395 of 2022 it is appearing that application submitted under Section 172 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 for diverting the use of land was pending consideration before competent authority and accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing competent authority to decide the application under Section 6 172 of the Code of 1959, in accordance with law. He pointed out that though private respondent no. 7 has challenged the order passed in writ petition before Hon’ble Supreme court, however, direction issued in writ petition was maintained and Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) to complete the inquiry as provided under Section 172 of Code of 1959 within specified time. The order in accordance with law was passed by Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) on an application under Section 172 on 19.10.2022. The order under section 172 was put to challenge before the Collector which came to be dismissed and, thereafter, petitioner no. 1 challenged order of Collector before the Commissioner, Bastar Division – Jagdalpur which is pending consideration and, therefore, petitioner no. 1 will not be permitted to raise the ground that order of diversion is not proper as it is pending consideration before appropriate authority. He submits that petitioner no. 1 thereafter, had submitted an application on 01.08.2025 before the grievance redressal cell. In that application he has raised new ground that land allotted by competent authority to respondent no. 7 was not in accordance with law, said application was also rejected on 18.09.2025. He submits that petitioner no. 1 with ulterior motive is filing one after another applications before different authorities raising different grounds, only to defeat advertisement issued by respondent no. 6 of the subject location. Respondent no. 6 is a public undertaking company and will establish petrol pump on to application filed by respondent no. 7 after following due process of law and obtaining all the permissions and sanction from the competent authority as required under law. He lastly submits that petitioner no. 1 is not an applicant or participant in the proceedings of selection of dealer as he has not submitted any 7 application pursuant to advertisement issued by respondent no. 6. The petitioner no. 2 has been impleaded only to maintain this writ petition. Writ petition on behalf of respondent no. 2 is to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. The proceedings of selection started from the date of advertisement in the year 2020, however, since 2020 till the filing of this writ petition petitioner no. 2 has not raised any objection before any authority nor filed any writ petition since 2020 till November, 2025 and hence it be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. 5. Mr. Satish Gupta learned counsel for State would submit that according to order passed by this Court in writ petition and further the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) has considered the application filed under Section 172 of the Code of 1959 and have passed an order following due process of law. The petitioner no. 1 has already challenged the legality and sustainability of order passed by Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) before Collector in an appeal and the appellate authority has affirmed the order of Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) observing that order is passed in accordance with law. Against order of Collector (appellate authority) proceedings before the Commissioner is still pending consideration and, therefore, no relief as sought for by the petitioner can be granted. He pointed out that the same advertisement with respect to same location was challenged by one Laxminath in writ petition bearing WPC No. 4615 of 2025 which was dismissed on the ground of locus that petitioner therein was not a participant to advertisement issued by respondent no. 6. He places copy of order dated 28.09.2025 passed in WP(c) No. 4615 of 2025 before this Court in support of his contention. 8 6. Learned counsel for respondent no. 7 would adopt the submission made by learned counsel for respondent no. 6 and respondent no. 1 to 5 and would further submit that the petition being devoid of substance deserved to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents enclosed along with this writ petition. 8. The objection raised by learned counsel for respondent no. 6 that petitioner has earlier filed a writ petition bearing WPC No. 3195 of 2022 and passing of an order directing respondent no. 2 and 3 therein that Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) and Collector to conclude the proceedings in an application filed under Section 172 of the Code of 1959 is not disputed by counsel for petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the advertisement was issued in the year 2020, however, it is petitioner no. 1 who filed an application raising grievance before grievance cell and writ petition challenging the selection of respondent no. 7 for appointment as dealer and not the petitioner no. 2. Petitioner no. 2 for the first time has approached this Court by filing of this writ petition only on 11.11.2025. 9. In the aforementioned facts of the case when petitioner no. 2 has challenged the selection of respondent no. 7 after lapse of about 5 years. No sufficient cause is shown for filing petition by petitioner no. 2 with inordinate delay, and therefore, this petition so far as it relates to petitioner no. 2 is dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. 10. So far as the grievance raised by petitioner no. 1, is concerned pursuant to order passed by this Court and affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) i.e. the competent authority has considered the application filed under Section 172 of the Code of 1959 9 and have passed detailed order. The order passed by Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) is affirmed by appellate authority (Collector) vide Annexure P-16 and undisputedly revision against the order of Collector is pending consideration before the Commissioner. The grievance if any with regard to passing of the order of Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) on an application under Section 172 cannot be considered in this writ petition as the petitioner has already submitted an application availing alternate remedy available to him under the Code of 1959. Parallel proceedings is not permissible, therefore, petitioner is not permitted to raise such ground before this Court, accordingly, the argument made by learned counsel for petitioner that order under Section 172 is not proper is repelled. 11. So far as the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner with regard to objection of grant of land to respondent no. 7 is concerned the petitioner was well aware with regard to proceedings initiated by respondent no. 6 by virtue of advertisement for appointment of dealers and also that respondent no. 7 has been selected for appointment of dealer subject to following of further requirements, though filed the writ petition bearing WPC no. 3195 of 2022 however, as there is no observation in the order dated 22.07.2022 about objection of allotment of land to respondent no. 7, but for objection raised is only with regard nature of land as mentioned in the revenue records i.e. abadi land and not for commercial use and therefore, after lapse of about more than 5 years petitioner will not be permitted to raise another new ground objecting the selection of respondent no. 7. Further petitioner is not a participant to proceedings of advertisement issued by respondent no. 6 for appointment of dealers and, therefore, he will not fall under the 10 category of aggrieved person. The petitioner is alien to the proceedings initiated by respondent no. 6 pursuant to advertisement for selection of dealers and, therefore, writ petition challenging selection of respondent no. 7 and issuance of letter of intent in his favor, no relief is sought for himself in this petition and, therefore, the writ petition challenging selection of respondent no. 7 is also not maintainable on behalf of respondent no. 1. 12. So far as the challenge to issuance of no objection certificate (NOC) in favor of respondent no. 6 on the ground that same land is offered by two persons is concerned, for selection of dealers in advertisement issued by two differed oil companies i.e. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, counsel for respondent no. 6 has submitted documents along with covering memo dated 03.12.2025 including the application submitted by one Rajeev Ranjan mentioning that he has been selected for appointment as dealer of retail outlet by Indian Oil Corporation however, due to bad financial condition he is not in a position of establishing petrol pump and prayed for cancellation of no objection certificate granted by Collector/Food Officer in his favor. Pursuant to the said application dated 08.09.2025 the Collector has passed an order on 17.09.2025 canceling the no objection certificate issued in favor of Rajeev Ranjan for establishing petrol pump as dealer of Indian Oil Corporation and subsequently no objection certificate is issued in favor of respondent no. 7 on 24.09.2025. This grant of no objection certificate is also challenged on the ground that no objection certificate is also back dated, however, from perusal of date mentioned in the order of cancellation of no objection certificate in favor of Rajeev Ranjan it is dated 17.09.2025 as also the signature of the Collector. 11 13. In the above facts of case, I am not inclined to accept such submission of counsel for the petitioner more so when petitioner is not applicant and participant of proceedings initiated by respondent no. 6 through advertisement. 14. For the forgoing discussion this writ petition being sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Certified copy as per rules. sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) alfiza JUDGE