Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010199972023 2026:GAU-AS:11932-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/349/2023 KABITA DAS W/O- GANESH CH DAS, VILL AND P.O. PATILADOHA, DIST.- BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 783391. VERSUS 1.UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS. REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, GOVT. OF INDIA, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI- 110001. 2:UNDER SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS GOVT. OF INDIA SHASTRI BHAWAN NEW DELHI- 110001. 3:BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED REP. BY THE TERRITORY MANAGER (RETAIL) GUWAHATI RETAIL TERRITORY OFFICE 1ST FLOOR NEXIA PARK GMCH ROAD CHRISTIAN BASTI GUWAHATI KAMRUP METROPOLITAN DISTRICT PIN- 781005. 4:INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED REP. BY THE CHIEF DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER SECTOR-3 NOONMATI GUWAHATI- 781020 (ASSAM). 5:SENIOR SALES OFFICER BARPETA RETAIL SALES AREA INDIAN OIL CORPORATION EAST POINT TOWER 4TH FLOOR BAMUNIMAIDAM PIN- 781021 Page No.# 2/6 Linked Case : WA/350/2023 BIPASA SOMIM ALOM W/O. MR. NAZMUL HOQUE VILL. BHATIPARA P.O. AND P.S. JOGIGHOPA DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN-783382. VERSUS 1.UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS. REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS GOVT. OF INDIA SHASTRI BHAWAN NEW DELHI-110001. 2:UNDER SECRETARYTO THE MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS GOVT. OF INDIA SHASTRI BHAWAN NEW DELHI-110001. 3:BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. REP. BY THE TERRITORY MANAGER (RETAIL) GUWAHATI RETAIL TERRITORY OFFICE 1ST FLOOR NEXIA PARTK GMCH ROAD CHRISTAIAN BASTI GUWAHATI KAMRUP (M) DISTRICT PIN-781005. 4:INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. REP. BY THECHIEF DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER SECTOR-3 NOONMATI GUWAHATI-781020 ASSAM. 5:SENIOR SALES OFFICER BONGAIGAON II RETAILS SALES AREA INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. EAST POINT TOWER 4TH FLOOR BAMUNIMAIDAM PIN-781021. For the Appellant(s) : Mr. K. Mohammad, Advocate. : Mr. Y. Khaund, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Roy, Central Government Counsel. : Mr. S. Borthakur, Advocate for respondent No.3. : Mr. M. Sarma, Advocate for IOCL/respondent Nos.4 & 5. Page No.# 3/6 –B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 20.08.2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. K. Mohammad, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. S. Borthakur, learned Advocate for respondent No.3/Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL). Both these appeals have been taken up together and are being disposed off by this common order. The present appeals have been preferred against the judgment dated 21.08.2023 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.6192/2022 and WP(C) No.6183/2022, respectively. The appellants run rural petrol pumps/retail outlets under the Indian Oil Corporation’s (IOCL) “Kisan Seva Kendra” Scheme. These outlets are B-Site Dealerships. The petrol pump belonging to the appellant in WA No.349/2023 is located on Patiladoha Road, which is about 4 Kilometre from NH-17 intersection and serves 4 (four) Gaon Panchayats, comprising roughly 20,000 people, spread over more than 15 kilometres with no other petrol pump standing in that stretch; whereas the petrol pump of the appellant in WA No.350/2023 is located within Balapara Gaon Panchayat within 4 Kilometre from NH31B, which serves approximately 9500 people of the area. Page No.# 4/6 In the year 2018, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short, ‘BPCL’) issued a notice inviting applications for new Rural Retail Outlet at Patiladoha Highway within 5 kilometres from the NH-17 intersection and also at Salbari-Jogighopa Road, between NH17 intersection and Balapara Post office. According to the appellants, these new outlets, if set up, would be very close to their existing petrol pumps. On objections raised by the appellants, the BPCL claimed that it had invited applications from the desirous persons to run the petrol pumps only after conducting a feasibility survey, followed by submission of report. The contention of the appellants is that such feasibility report was flawed, because while conducting the survey/preparing the report, only two other distant petrol pumps of IOCL and HPCL were taken into consideration, while completely ignoring the petrol pumps belonging to the appellants. The contention of the appellants all along had been that had the situs of their petrol pumps been taken into account while preparing the feasibility report, the expected sale volume of the proposed outlets would be definitely seen to be falling below the minimum required 25 kilolitre per month, specified for a rural outlet, making the new outlets commercially unviable and against the business interests of the appellants. Further, with the setting up of new petrol pumps, the sale volume of their petrol pumps would also be considerably reduced. Page No.# 5/6 With this logic, the appellants had earlier challenged the 2018 notice issued by the BPCL before this Court by filing writ petitions, WP(C) No.367/2019 and WP(C) No.395/2019, respectively, wherein initially this Court had stayed the notice inviting applications. After the feasibility report was made known to the Court, the appellants had withdrawn those writ petitions to challenge the feasibility report itself. Thereafter, fresh writ petitions were filed by the appellants questioning the correctness of such feasibility report and the decision to set up the new outlets. By the impugned judgment dated 21.08.2023, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions holding that the guidelines dated 06.04.2011, issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government India, under which such feasibility report was prepared, is only an executive instruction and the same is not enforceable in a Court of law. Even otherwise, the learned Single Judge was of the view that the report showed the expected sales volume of 80 kilolitre per month for a new outlet, which would be above 25 kilolitre, i.e. the minimum sale requirement for a rural outlet even if the petrol pumps of the appellants had been taken into consideration. The petrol pumps of the appellants should have been considered in the feasibility report as the nearest outlets, but mere omission to consider the existence of the outlets run by IOCL cannot be a ground to invalidate or declare a feasibility report faulty for the reasons, which have been stated above. Page No.# 6/6 Mr. S. Borthakur, learned Advocate for the BPCL further submits that while the appellants had set up their petrol pumps under an agreement with the IOCL, under which they would be under an obligation not to object to any new dealership by any other Oil Company. The records further reveal that the IOCL had no objection to BPCL’s proposal. Opening of a new outlet prima facie serves public interest in several ways; one being is to provide competition and better service, and the other for more accessibility to the people for fuel. But that apart, we are of the considered view that the writ petitions could not have been entertained to protect private business interest at the cost of public interest. For the afore-noted reasons, we deem it appropriate not to interfere with the impugned judgment. We order accordingly. The present appeals are dismissed as being devoid of merit. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant