Ravi S/O Fakkirappa Lamani vs. The Deputy Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, Ravi S/o. Fakkirappa Lamani, proprietor of Shri Siddhivinayak Petroleum, a retail outlet dealer of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL), filed a writ petition challenging a 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) granted by the Deputy Commissioner (1st respondent) to the 3rd respondent. The petitioner contended that the NOC granted to the 3rd respondent to run a retail outlet of Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) violated guidelines regarding the establishment of new retail outlets within a 300-meter vicinity. The petitioner sought to quash this NOC, arguing it was granted without proper procedure.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner, as a dealer of an existing retail outlet, has no locus standi to question the NOC issued by the competent authority for a rival petrol bunk. Relying on a Division Bench judgment of the same Court in W.A.No.50299/2012, the Court found that the establishment of a new retail outlet, even within a certain proximity, leads to competition which benefits the public. The Division Bench had previously held that an existing dealer has no legal right to prevent a competitor from setting up a petrol bunk. Consequently, the petitioner's contention that the NOC violated the 300-meter guideline and that an opportunity of hearing should have been provided was rejected in light of the precedent. The Court found the writ petition devoid of merits and saw no reason to interfere with the NOC granted by the Deputy Commissioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, as a dealer of an existing retail outlet, has the locus standi to question the 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) issued by the competent authority for the establishment of a new retail outlet for a rival company. 2. Whether the Deputy Commissioner erred in granting the NOC without affording an opportunity to the petitioner, given the proximity of the proposed outlet. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the new IOCL outlet's proximity violated the 300-meter guideline and that the Deputy Commissioner should have provided an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard before issuing the NOC. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the 1st respondent (Deputy Commissioner) or the 2nd respondent (Indian Oil Corporation Limited). However, it references a Division Bench judgment that dealt with similar objections.