1 2025:CGHC:52628-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 770 of 2025 Parmanand Sai Painkra S/o Late Sarthu Sai Aged About 57 Years R/o Village And Post Pandripani, Tehsil Farsabahar, District Jashpur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner, Sarguja Division, At Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G) 3 - Collector, Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G) 4 - Sub-Divisional O2cer (Revenue) Farsabahar, District Jashpur (C.G) 5 - Tehsildar, Tehsil Farsahabar, District Jashpur (C.G) JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.10.30 18:31:19 +0530 2 6 - Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil Farsahabar, District Jashpur (C.G) 7 - Patwari, Halka No. 19, Village Pandripani, Revenue Circle And Tehsil Farsabahar, District Jashpur (C.G) 8 - Indian Oil Corporation Limited Through Its Divisional Manager, Raipur Divisional O2ce, Indian Oil Bhavan, Rajiv Gandhi Marg, V.I.P. Road, P.O. Ravigram Telibandha, Raipur (C.G) 492006 9 - Shri Mukesh Kumar Gupta, Manager (Rs), Korba Sales O2ce, C/o Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Raipur Divisional O2ce, Indian Oil Bhavan, Rajiv Gandhi Marg, V.I.P. Road, P.O. Ravigram, Raipur (C.G) 492006 10 - Amit Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Anandi Prasad Gupta R/o Village And Post Pandripani, Tehsil Farsabahar, District Jashpur (C.G.) (Petrol Pump Owner) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Appellant : Shri Arham Siddiqui, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Shri Y.S. Thakur, Additional Advocate General For Respondent No. 8 : Shri Anand Shukla, Advocate. 3 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 29.10.2025 1. Heard Shri Arham Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellant Also heard Shri Y.S. Thakur, Additional Advocate General appearing for the State and Shri Anand Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent No. 8. 2. This writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner assailing the order dated 01.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 4641/2025, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner came to be dismissed. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the writ Court. 3. The facts of the present case are that the illegal NOC granted by respondent No.8 in favour of respondent No.10 for establishing of petrol pump at Khasra No. 445/1/क/24, over 20mt. X 20 mt. land at Village Pandripani, Patwari Halka No.19, Tahsil Farsabahar, District Jashpur (C.G.). An advertisement was Aoated for the appointment of rural retail outlet dealership by the respondent Indian Oil Corporation Limited, at the location "From 4 Junction (SH4 and New Bus Stand Road) towards Pandripani, New Bus Stand Road, Tehsil Pharsabahar, District Jashpur" under the "Rural Category". The location is mentioned at serial number 1073 of the said advertisement. Based upon the said advertisement, the respondent No. 10/Amit Kumar Gupta applied for the said location and was selected. 4. Since the petrol pump is under the rural category, it had to be established on a rural road, and therefore, the respondent no. 10 in connivance with the revenue authorities prepared incorrect revenue records to show that a rural road passes with the land bearing the aforesaid Khasra Number, so that the relevant permissions and no- objections can be granted to him to operate the said rural outlet. When the petitioner became aware of this fraud and connivance, he approached the revenue authorities on 10-01-2023, by preferring an application dated 10-01-2023 before the respondent no. 5/Tehsildar for necessary correction in the revenue record. As per the averment in the application, in Village Pandripani over Khasra No. 445/1/6/28, Rakba 0.020 Hectare, erroneously, "road" has been recorded and map has also been prepared, which was in fact a land of Bhumiswami Right, therefore the error must be corrected. Upon the said application, the report of respondent no.7/Halka Patwari was received, which 5 shows that on spot inspection of the said land, it was found that a Gitti Dirt Track (Kacchi Sadak) is present over the said land and online map is available, however, in the running map (Chalu Naksha), the same is not available, as also "road" is not registered in the Manual Khasra & online Khasra from 2016-19 & 2020-21. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition by the order impugned and has observed as under:- “xxx xxx xxx 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by learned counsel for the parties. Taking into consideration the fact that the relief which has been sought by the petitioner cannot be granted in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Considering the fact that the NOC has granted in favour of the respondent No.10 in the year 2023, so there is delay and latches in %ling the petition and also considering the fact that the petrol pump of respondent No.10 is in operating condition at present. Hence, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the 6 NOC given in favour of the respondent No.10, therefore, in view of the considered opinion of this Court, this petition is not maintainable.. 7. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of any merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. However, the petitioner is at liberty to %le appropriate application/representation before respondent No.8, if so desire." 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that the learned Single Judge erred in law in dismissing the writ petition both on merits and on maintainability. It is contended that the writ court, while exercising its power of judicial review, is competent to examine the decision-making process relating to the grant of an illegal NOC, particularly when the same was obtained in connivance with the revenue o2cials by preparing false revenue maps to enable respondent No.10 to establish a petrol pump. The Gnding regarding delay and laches is also erroneous, as the petitioner had su2ciently explained the delay in paragraph 7 of the writ petition, showing that he had been pursuing remedies before the revenue authorities and had faced administrative delay in obtaining certiGed records. It is further 7 submitted that the Gnding regarding lack of locus standi is contrary to the record, as the certiGed copies of the proceedings before the Collector, Jashpur (Annexure P/5), clearly establish that the petitioner had Gled objections to the grant of NOC and therefore had su2cient locus to maintain the petition. It is lastly submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the material discrepancy in the Khasra numbers—445/1/क/24 and 445/1/क/28—and that in connivance with the revenue o2cials, a false rural road was shown to exist to facilitate the grant of NOC to respondent No.10, which vitiates the entire process. Hence, the appellant seeks setting aside of the impugned order. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents oppose the submission made by counsel for the writ petitioner/appellant and contended that the writ petitioner/appellant has no locus standi to challenge the order of NOC given in favour of respondent No. 10. They further contended that the petitioner is neither participated in the advertisement Aoated for the appointment of rural retail outlet dealership by the respondent- Indian Oil Corporation Limited nor he raised any objection before the Collector. They further contended that the establishment of the Grm is at Khasra No. 445/1/क/24, however, in all the revenue proceedings Khasra No. 445/1/क/28 has been 8 mentioned. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition by assigning cogent reasons. The learned Single Judge has correctly held that the relief sought by the petitioner could not be granted in exercise of writ jurisdiction, particularly when the NOC in favour of respondent No.10 was granted in the year 2023, and the appellant/writ petitioner has failed to satisfactorily explain the delay, and the reasons assigned in the writ petition do not constitute a valid or su2cient cause. Furthermore, the petrol pump in question is already in operation, and no material has been placed on record to show any illegality or violation of statutory provisions in the grant of NOC. The Gnding of the learned Single Judge that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the NOC granted to respondent No.10 is based on the record and calls for no interference by this Court. Accordingly, this Court Gnds no merit in the writ appeal. 9 11. The scope of interference in an intra-court appeal is limited to cases where the order of the learned Single Judge suIers from patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. In the present case, we Gnd that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 12. The writ appeal, being devoid of merits, is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/S