JUDGMENT : Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief(s):- “1.1. Issuance of a writ in the nature of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ / order / direction for quashing the impugned memo no. 5649 dated 06.10.2025, by which the license dated 25.07.2025 issued by the DTO, Gaya, for storage and sale of petroleum products at the Petitioner's Retail Outlet, has been suspended on non-est grounds. 1.2. Issuance of a consequent writ in the nature of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order/direction to the respondent authorities to forthwith take all the requisite steps for ensuring that the Petitioner's suspended storage and sale license dated 25.07.2025, issued by the DTO, Gaya, for storage and sale of petroleum products at the Petitioner's Retail Outlet, is immediately revived for making the Petitioner's Retail Outlet operational inasmuch as the Petitioner's Retail Outlet, despite having been issued the Letter of Acceptance (LOA) in the year 2022, has still not been able to commence sale as the same has been thwarted by the respondent authorities, at the behest of vested interests, for one non-est reason or the other. 1.3. For issuance of an interim order directing stay of operation of the aforesaid impugned memo no. 5649 dated 06.10.2025, by which the Petitioner's license dated 25.07.2025 has been suspended by the DTO, Gaya and further for directing that the Petitioner's RO becomes operational during the pendency of the instant matter.” 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the respondent State as well as the counsel for the respondent (BPCL). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent- BPCL, the petitioner has applied and has been selected as a RO dealer vide appointment letter dated 30.07.2022. Thereafter, the other statutory authorities gave the necessary permissions and no objection certificates (NOC). When only the District Transport Officer, Gaya was required to give sale license and the same was being delayed, the petitioner approached this Court by way of C.W.J.C. No. 4524 of 2024 which was disposed of vide common order dated 23.01.2025. The District Transport Officer, Gaya vide order dated 25.07.2025 has issued the sale license to the petitioner, thereafter, the District Transport Officer vide memo no. 5649 dated 06.10.2025 has suspended the sale license granted to the petitioner. The District Transport Officer, Gaya vide order dated 25.07.2025 has issued the sale license to the petitioner, thereafter, the District Transport Officer vide memo no. 5649 dated 06.10.2025 has suspended the sale license granted to the petitioner. The present writ petition is filed challenging the action of the District Transport Officer, Gaya in suspending the sale license granted on 25.07.2025. One of the reasons for issuance of the impugned letter of suspension was on the premise that this Court vide order dated 23.01.2025 has directed the petitioner to lay the service road between the Retail Outlet of the petitioner established and the retail outlet of the rival which is within a distance of less than 300 mtrs. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order passed by the District Transport Officer, Gaya dated 06.10.2025 is per se illegal as the competent authority i.e. the Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar has granted exemption from laying of the service road between the two retail outlets. Learned counsel submits that after this Court has passed a common order dated 23.01.2025 in C.W.J.C. No. 14682 of 2023 and C.W.J.C. No. 4524 of 2024, the petitioner had made necessary application seeking permission for construction of the service road. However, the competent authority i.e. the Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar vide order dated 20.06.2025 (Annexure- P/21F) has granted exemption to the petitioner from constructing any service road as the national highway was passing between the two Retail Outlets (ROs). Learned counsel submits that once the competent authority in its wisdom has passed the order exempting the petitioner from laying of the service roads between the two Retail Outlets, District Transport Officer, Gaya had no occasion to pass the impugned order in the present writ petition and the same is totally misplaced. Learned counsel submits that the District Transport Officer, Gaya on the premise that the petitioner has violated the common order dated 23.01.2025 passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 14682 of 2023 and C.W.J.C. No. 4524 of 2024 has passed the impugned order. Learned counsel submits that there is no violation of the order passed by this Court as the petitioner in compliance of the common order dated 23.01.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court. Learned counsel submits that there is no violation of the order passed by this Court as the petitioner in compliance of the common order dated 23.01.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court. This Court has made an application for the construction of the service road between the two retail outlets, however the competent authority in its wisdom has taken a decision to grant exemption to the petitioner from constructing the service road. The petitioner could not had constructed the service road without any permission from the competent authority on the strength of the High Court order dated 23.01.2025. Learned counsel prays that Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 06.10.2025 passed by the District Transport Officer, Gaya by allowing the present writ petition. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State has vehemently opposed the very maintainability of the present writ petition. Learned counsel has stated that this Court vide common order dated 23.01.2025 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4524 of 2024 and C.W.J.C. No. 14682 of 2023 has directed the petitioner to construct the service road between the two Retails Outlets and the said order was passed on the undertaking given by the petitioner himself. That once the petitioner has given an undertaking to this Hon’ble Court for laying of a service road and this Court has passed the order directing him to lay the service road, the question of the petitioner turning back and rescinding from his undertaking cannot be permitted. Learned counsel further submits that the sale license which was given to the petitioner was a conditional one and as the petitioner has violated the conditions, the authority had to suspend the sale license granted to the petitioner on 25.07.2025. It was further argued that the petitioner was obligated to lay the service road between the two retail outlets and he cannot be allowed to operate the retail outlets without laying the service road between the two retail outlets. Learned counsel has, therefore, prayed this Hon’ble Court to dismiss the present writ petition. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents- BPCL on the other hand submitted that the respondent- BPCL has no objection if the impugned order dated 06.10.2025 is set aside as the same is passed by misreading the common order of this Court. Learned counsel has, therefore, prayed this Hon’ble Court to dismiss the present writ petition. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents- BPCL on the other hand submitted that the respondent- BPCL has no objection if the impugned order dated 06.10.2025 is set aside as the same is passed by misreading the common order of this Court. Learned counsel has stated that once the competent authority i.e. the Road Construction Department, State of Bihar has granted the exemption, the question of suspending the license by the District Transport Officer, Gaya is totally misplaced. 7. Admittedly, in the present case the petitioner has approached this Court on the earlier occasion vide C.W.J.C. No. 4524 of 2024 and this Court vide common order dated 23.01.2025 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 14682 of 2023 and C.W.J.C. No. 4524 of 2024 has passed the following order: “9. Having regard to the above, the present writ petition is disposed of directing the 'Respondent No. 8 in the CWJC No. 14682 of 2023 to abide by the conditions imposed in the NOC issued. The Respondent No. 8 shall not commence his operations till such time the service road as mandated by clause 4.6.3 is provided. The Respondent No. 8 shall endeavour to complete the service road within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Thereafter, he shall intimate the Respondent-Corporation about the laying of the service road, on such intimation the authority shall inspect the site of the petitioner and permit him to operate the retail outlet if the other parameters and conditions are met.” 8. That after the disposal of the above writ petition, the petitioner has approached the competent authority i.e. the Road Construction Department for laying the service road. However, the authority in its wisdom has passed the order dated 20.06.2025 granting exemption to the petitioner from constructing the service road between the two retail outlets. The authority was of the view that the national highway is passing between the two Retail Outlets and therefore there was no need for constructing the service road. 9. However, the authority in its wisdom has passed the order dated 20.06.2025 granting exemption to the petitioner from constructing the service road between the two retail outlets. The authority was of the view that the national highway is passing between the two Retail Outlets and therefore there was no need for constructing the service road. 9. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the District Transport Officer, Gaya dated 06.10.2025 (Annexure- P/23) reveals that the District Transport Officer, Gaya vide order dated 25.07.2025 has granted the sale license in favour of the petitioner and the same has been suspended solely on the ground that the petitioner has violated the conditions of granting the license. 10. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent State, it is specifically averred that the petitioner having given an undertaking to this Hon’ble Court that he will construct the service road cannot take a U-turn and the same was in violation of the orders passed by this Court. 11. This Court is of the opinion that the said stand taken by the District Transport Officer, Gaya is totally misplaced and contrary to the facts of this particular case. Admittedly in this case, the petitioner has applied to the competent authority for constructing the service road as per the direction of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 14682 of 2023 and C.W.J.C. No. 4524 of 2024 dated 23.01.2025. The Road Construction Department duly taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and also the fact that the national highway was passing between the two Retail Outlets has granted exemption to the petitioner from constructing the service road. Once the competent authority has granted the exemption from constructing the service road, the question of petitioner violating the conditions of the license or the orders of this Court dated 23.01.2025 does not arise. By no stretch of imagination can it be said that the petitioner has violated the orders of this Court. This Court duly taking into account the facts of the case and also the undertaking given by the petitioner that he is willing to construct the service road has passed the order directing him to construct the service road but however it cannot be construed that the construction of the service road can be done without obtaining the necessary permission from the competent authority. In this case, the competent authority has granted the exemption when the petitioner has applied for constructing the same. The common order dated 23.01.2025 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 14682 of 2023 and C.W.J.C. No. 4524 of 2024 does not in manner means that the petitioner can construct the service road on his own without taking the necessary permission from the competent court. Wherever permissions are granted by the Courts to make any constructions, the same have to be necessarily done only after obtaining the necessary permissions from the competent court and in conforming with the existing building lawn. 12. Having regard to the above, the impugned order dated 06.10.2025 passed by the District Transport Officer, Gaya is set aside and the sale license of the petitioner dated 25.07.2025 is restored. The respondent- BPCL is directed to see that the petrol pump/ Retail Outlet is operational at the earliest preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 13. The present writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.