- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40780 WP No. 18884 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.18884 OF 2022 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. M. JAGADEESH S/O LATE MUDDABASAPPA @ GUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT MALLAHALLI VILLAGE, HADYA POST, HULLAHALLI HOBLI, NAJANGUD TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571 315. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVARAMU H.C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. N.T. RAVI KUMAR AGED 48 YEARS, S/O THIMMEGOWDA N.V. R/AT NO.3146, 8TH CROSS, R.P.ROAD, NANJANGUD-571 301. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSURU. 3. M/S. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD MYSORE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40780 WP No. 18884 of 2022 NO.136/A, I FLOOR, B.N.ROAD, MYSORE TRADE CENTRE, OPPOSITE TO KSRTC BUS STAND, MYSORE-570 001 BY ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICER. 4. M/S. NAYARA ENERGY LIMITED FORMERLY ESSAR OIL LIMITED NO.12, MAYO CENTRE, COMMISSARIAT ROAD, NEAR GARUDA MALL BENGALURU -560 025 BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER. 5. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS PARIVAHAN BHAVAN NO.1, SANSAD MARG NEW DELHI-110 001 REPTD BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MADHUSUDHAN M.N., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R2; SRI. SANTHOSH S. NAGARALE, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. H. SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DSG FOR R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 26.08.2022 IN NO.MYSDC/MAGI/EXPLO/10/2022 (E-186828) AT ANNEXURE-G IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40780 WP No. 18884 of 2022 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. In this Writ Petition, petitioner is assailing the 'No Objection Certificate' dated 26.08.2022 (Annexure-G) issued by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.1. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. Sri. H.C. Shivaramu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways dated 12.04.2013 and submitted that it is the duty of the petrol dealing companies to follow the guidelines issued by the Union Government with regard to new fuel distribution outlets on / near the National Highways and accordingly, sought interference of this Court. 4. Per contra, Sri. Madhusudhan M.N., learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that the Company under which the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40780 WP No. 18884 of 2022 petitioner is having retail outlet is from respondent No.3, however, respondent No.1 had taken the permission from respondent No.2 and since it is a question of competition between two dealers of different fuel distributing companies, therefore, the Writ Petition does not survive for consideration. 5. Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate sought to justify the impugned order produced at Annexure-G to the Writ Petition. 6. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that petitioner herein had retail outlet from respondent No.4 - Company and has proposed retail outlet as per Annexure-A to the Writ Petition. It is also to be noted that the first respondent herein has made an application seeking establishing a new petrol bunk outlet from respondent No.3. In this regard, respondent No.2 has issued the NOC to respondent No.1 to put the new petrol bunk. 7. Having taken note of the grievance urged by the petitioner herein, it is relevant to note the observation made by Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.50299/2012 disposed of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40780 WP No. 18884 of 2022 on 23.01.2023, wherein, this Court at para No.2 has 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 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, it is nothing but a case of competition - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40780 WP No. 18884 of 2022 between two rival retail dealers of different companies and in that view of the matter, I am of the view that, the guidelines issued at Annexure-H cannot be made applicable in so far as the case on hand is concerned. 9. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed as not maintainable. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17