1 2026:CGHC:6707-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 118 of 2026 1 - Jaideep Singh Bhadauriya S/o Late Dheeraj Singh Bhadauriya Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Tongpal Tehsil - Tongpal District Sukma Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Simmi Bhadauriya W/o Hardip Bhadauriya Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Tongpal Tehsil - Chindgarh P.S. Tongpal District - Sukma Chhattisgarh ... Appellants 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 Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector (Food) Sukma And Licensing Authority, Sukma District Sukma Chhattisgarh 3 - Additional Collector Sukma Composite District Office Building, Kumharras, Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh 4 - Sub-Divisional Officer Sukma District - Sukma Chhattisgarh SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.02.06 18:35:25 +0530 2 5 - Commissioner Bastar Division Bastar District Bastar Chhattisgarh 6 - Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Through Its Deputy General Manager, HPCL, 4th Floor LIC Investment Building, Phase- 2, Opposite EPF Office, Pandri, Raipur Chhattisgarh 7 - Shailendra Singh Bhadoriya S/o Nathu Singh Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Tongpal, Tahsil Tongpal, District Sukma Chhattisgarh 8 - Tahsildar Tongpal District Sukma Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants :Mr. Varun Sharma along with Shri Krishna Tandon, Advocates. For Respondents/State :Mr. Praveen Das, Addl. Advocate General. For Respondent No.6 :Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 06.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Varun Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants. Also heard Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the Respondents/State and Mr. Sourabh Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.6. 2. The present Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 3 11.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 6138/2025 whereby, the Writ Petition was dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches, availability of alternative statutory remedy, lack of locus to challenge the dealer selection and issuance of letter of intent in favour of Respondent No.7 and absence of merit in the challenge to grant of No Objection Certificate. 3. Learned counsel for the Appellants submits that the impugned order dated 11.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the material available on record, inasmuch as the learned Single Judge failed to consider that the legality of diversion and allotment of the land offered by Respondent No. 7 was itself under challenge and subject to enquiry pursuant to the directions issued by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(C) No.3195/2022 and affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which directions have not been duly complied with, as reflected from the subsequent order of the Collector calling for enquiry into the alleged fraudulent allotment of Government abadi land. It is further submitted that dismissal of the Writ Petition on the ground of lack of locus is unsustainable, as Appellant No.2 was a participant in the dealer selection process and Appellant No.1 was pursuing the matter on her behalf. It is contended that the rejection of the Appellants’ complaint by HPCL and issuance of NOC dated 24.09.2025 in favour of Respondent No.7 are arbitrary and contrary to law, particularly when the suitability, title and legality of the very same land remain under dispute, an 4 earlier NOC had already been issued in favour of another oil company for the same land and the land does not conform to the applicable National Highway norms. He lastly submits that consideration of Respondent No.7’s candidature and continuation of the letter of intent, despite pending enquiries regarding illegal allotment of Government land and alleged suppression of material facts, demonstrate clear non-application of mind and favouritism on the part of the authorities, seriously prejudicing the Appellants’ rights and rendering the impugned judgment liable to be set aside. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General and learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.6 opposed the Appeal and supported the impugned order submitting that the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the Writ Petition on the grounds of delay and laches, lack of locus standi, and availability of an efficacious alternative statutory remedy under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. It is contended that issues relating to diversion and revenue proceedings are already pending before the competent authorities and cannot be agitated in writ jurisdiction and that the Appellants have no enforceable legal right to challenge the dealer selection or issuance of letter of intent and No Objection Certificate in favour of Respondent No.7 and no interference is warranted in the present Writ Appeal. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 5 material on record, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the challenge raised by Appellant No.2 on the ground of inordinate delay and laches. As regards Appellant No.1, the grievance relating to diversion of land under Section 172 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, had already been pursued before the competent authorities and the availability and pendency of this statutory remedy precludes parallel consideration in writ jurisdiction. It is further evident that the Appellants were not participants in the dealer selection process and therefore, lacked locus to challenge the selection of Respondent No.7, the issuance of the letter of intent, or the grant of No Objection Certificate, which was also held to be in order. In these circumstances, the Writ Petition was correctly dismissed by the Single Bench as being devoid of merit and no error of law or jurisdiction is shown to warrant interference. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Priya