HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 26001 of 2026 Court No. - 21 HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J. HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J. Order on Withdrawal Application 1. Mr. Ashish Kumar Singh, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. Himanshu Dubey, learned advocate appear for petitioners and submits, the 'no objection certificate' (NOC) in respect of the plot, in respect of which his client has been selected as dealer to run the retail outlet (RO), has been issued. He submits, in the circumstances his client has filed withdrawal application dated 14th September, 2026. Mrs. Archana Tyagi, learned advocate, Additional Chief Standing Counsel appears for State and submits, the certificate has been issued. Mr. Komal Mehrotra, learned advocate appears for respondent nos.3 and 4 (the oil company). 2. We reproduce below paragraph 4 from our earlier order dated 12th August, 2026 to provide the link for result of issuance of the certificate. "4. We see, the learned single Judge in Sharad Kumar Dwivedi (supra) had relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in Chandigarh Administration v. Jagjit Singh, reported in (1995) 1 SCC 745. The Supreme Court had declared the law to be that a person cannot claim on negative equity. The Court went on to say that indeed, wherever it is possible, the Court should direct the appropriate authority to correct such wrong orders in accordance with law. State has relied upon the rule, which provides for appeal against grant or cancellation of NOC. Assuming the NOC to GAIL was wrongly granted, steps are to be taken for cancellation thereof. On query Mrs. Tyagi submits, she wants adjournment to obtain instructions. We add that she must also demonstrate the drain falls under sub- Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Birendra Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Himanshu Dubey, Komal Mehrotra Kunal Mittal And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) clause (b) in clause 77 of the Code inasmuch as, the record does not show the drain to be land covered by water and used for purpose of growing singhara or other produce. It may well turn out that the NOC to GAIL was duly granted. Then and in that event petitioners will have case of discrimination, warranting interference in spite of alternative remedy available. " Petitioners have found their relief. 3. The writ petition and the application are disposed of. September 16, 2026 Salim WRIC No. 26001 of 2026 2 (Arindam Sinha,J.) (Satya Veer Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SALIM PRAVEJ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad