S. No. 33 Suppl. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 3095/2024 CM(8430/2024) MOHAMMAD ASHRAF RATHER …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Bhat Fayaz, Advocate Vs UNION OF INDIA TH.SECRETARY PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS AND ORS ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Syed Faisal Qadri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sikander Hyaat Khan, Advocate for R 2 to 5 Mr. Satinder Singh Kala, AAG for R 6 & 7 Ms. Bisma, Assisting Counsel vice Mr. T. M. Shamsi, DSGI for R 1 CORAM: HON’BLE MS JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE ORDER 02.01.2025 1. In the instant petition, petitioner herein is seeking direction upon the respondents to implement the guidelines/notification issued by the Divisional Commissioner in terms of notification No. DIVCOM/DEV/132/2022/4833-75 dated 21.05.2022, before granting any NOC for raising any construction/structure within 500 meters of under construction Ring Road, with a further direction to respondents to ensure that before issuing any NOC to any incumbent at Village Wathoora, Chadoora, District Budgam for installation of a petrol pump, no NOC shall be issued with regard to any land which falls within 500 meters from the boundary of the ring road. 2. In the instant petition, petitioner has nowhere referred that how he has been affected and has any locus to file the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. As per pleadings the petitioner is stranger to challenge the advertisement notice, issued by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited for appointment of regular/rural retail outlet dealership of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited proposed in UT of J&K, at Village Wathoora, District Budgam. 3. Mr. Syed Faisal Qadri, learned senior counsel representing respondents 2 to 5, was requested to seek instructions. He has produced an order passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge Sr. Division/Sub-Judge, Chadoora, wherein an identical issue was raised by one Abdul Rouf Malla and after hearing the parties the interim application was dismissed. As per him, it is a sponsored litigation by the petitioner who has no cause to come to the court. He has further stated that LOI has been issued in favour of one of the beneficiaries namely Abdul Ahad Bhat issued on 23.10.2024. He has also stated that only LOI has been issued but rest of the formalities including obtaining NOCs are yet to be taken by the respondents. Moreover, petitioner has not challenged the LOI being issued by respondents 2 to 5 in favour of Abdul Ahad Bhat. On this count the instant petition is premature. 4. Mr. Satinder Singh Kala, learned AAG representing respondents 6 & 7 has stated that the notification which was issued by Divisional Commissioner in terms of notification dated 21.05.2022, was only for the period of 02 years and as such has outlived its life. Therefore, on this count also, the instant petition is not maintainable. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage confronted with the above contentions of learned counsel for the respondents, seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the instant petition. 6. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. (MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 02.01.2025 Aamir