HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 30699 of 2025 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.1, Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.3 to 5. 2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has prayed for the following relief:- "(i). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned letter dated 11-06-2024 issued by the respondent no.3 to the respondent no. 2 in respect of refusal of no objection certificate of the petitioner of Arazi No.81 and 87 situated in Village Barsada Varanasi Ghazipur Road, Tehsil Sadar, Police Station Chaubepur District Varanasi for establishment of New Retail Outlet of Petrol/diesel under 144 (5) of Petroleum Rules. (ii). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent's authority to issue no objection certificate for retail outlet dealership of the petitioner name of the location within 3 K.M. of Chaubepur Police Station on NH-31 (LHS) going from Varanasi to Ghazipur. (iii). Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. (iv). Award with cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner." Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajeev Kumar Saxena, Virendra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Manoj Kumar Singh, Santosh Kumar Singh Vinod Kumar Chaubey .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) 3. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent Petroleum Corporation that against the impugned order, there is a statutory appeal under Rule 154 (2) of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 before the next higher authority, which fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. In such view of the fact, the present petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. 5. It is made clear that if the petitioner prefers an appeal against the impugned order within a period of one month from today, the appellate authority shall consider and decide the appeal on merit without entering into the question of limitation. October 9, 2025 NS WRIC No. 30699 of 2025 2 (Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad