Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Janjgir Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chattisgarh, District
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:15266 NAFR SMT NIRMALA RAO HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3853 of 2019 1 - Gajalal Sahu S/o Late Ramprasad Sahu Aged About 54 Years R/o Gram Borda, Post Jajang, Tehsil Sakti, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh, Janjgir-Champa, District : 2 - Basant Kumar S/o Mehettar Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Kanchanpur, Tehsil Sakti, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Janjgir Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sakti, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh, Janjgir-Champa, District : 3 - Rishabh Agrawal S/o Vinod Kumar Agrawal Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 7, Sakti, P.S. Sakti, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh District Janjgir-Champa, : 4 - Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited A Governmenrt Of India, Enterprises, Through, Its General Manager, 17 Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra, District : Mumbai, Maharashtra ---- Respondents WITH WPC No. 3854 of 2019 1 - Suresh Kumar W/o Narayan Bareth Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Kanchanpur, Tehsil Sakti, District - Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh -2- 2 - Ganpat Singh S/o Daduram Sidhar, Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Kanchanpur, Tehsil Sakti, District - Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Suresh Singh S/o Aghan Singh Sidar, Aged About 30 Years R/o Kanchanpur, Tehsil Sakti, District - Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Janjgir Champa, District - Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sub Divisional Officer ( Revenue ) Sakti, District Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Rishabh Agrawal S/o Vinod Kumar Agrawal Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 7, Sakti, Police Station Sakti, District - Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 4 - Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, A Government Of India, Enterprises, Through Its General Manager, 17 Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra., District : Mumbai, Maharashtra ---- Respondents For Petitioners : For Respondents No.1 & 2/State: For Respondent No.3 For Respondent No.4 : :
Legal Reasoning
Shri Abhyuday Tripathi, Advocate holding the brief of Ms. Diksha Gauraha, Advocate. Shri Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. Shri Prateek Sharma, Advocate. Shri Ali Asgar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01.04.2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. The petitioners have filed these petitions seeking the following relief(s):- 3 “1) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions and the order dated 27.05.2019 and the recommendation dated 02.03.2019 may kindly be quashed and the No Objection Certificate granted to the respondent no.3 may kindly be rejected. 2) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. The facts of the present case are that an advertisement was issued for the allotment of a retail outlet (Petrol/Diesel) pump at Kanchanpur between Bandwa Talab and Sakreli Road, Tehsil Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa on 12.1.2014. Respondent No.3 and other candidates participated in that proceeding. The bid of respondent No. 3 was accepted and a Letter of Intent was issued on 12.3.2018. A resolution was also passed by Gram Panchayat in favour of respondent No. 3. Subsequently, another resolution was passed at the behest of the petitioners by the Gram Panchayat on 6.3.2019. Pursuant to the objection invited by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Janjgir, the petitioners raised their objections. The objections so raised by the petitioners were turned down by the said authority vide order dated 21.12.2018. Thereafter, the Collector Janjgir-Champa issued No Objection Certificate (NOC) in favour of respondent No.3 on 27.5.2019. The petitioners filed these petitions challenging the grant of no objection certificate to -4- respondent No.3 by the concerned authority i.e. the Collector, District Janjgir-Champa dated 27.5.2019. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners had raised objections before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) even though the Collector, District Janjgir-Champa issued NOC in favour of respondent No.3. He would contend that the decision taken by the concerned Collector was erroneous and contrary to the guidelines of respondent No.4. He would also submit that the NOC granted to respondent No.3 is liable to be canceled and the order passed by the Collector in this regard may be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned Advocates appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. They would submit that the petitioners raised objections before the Sub Divisional Officer though they had no locus standi. They would contend that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) has not been challenged by the petitioners in these petitions. They would further contend that as the objections raised by the petitioners were rejected, the Collector, Janjgir-Champa rightly issued the NOC in favour of respondent No.3. They would also contend that the retail outlet was established in the year 2020 itself and is being operated without any hindrance. They would state that as the petitioners have not challenged the order of selection and Letter of Intent 5 (LOI) issued in favor of respondent No.3, these petitions deserve to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the documents present on the record. 7. It appears that pursuant to the advertisement issued by respondent No.4, respondent No.3 participated in the bid and he was selected for allotment of retail outlet. The objections were invited by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Janjgir and the petitioners raised objections. The objections raised by the petitioners were rejected by the said authority vide order dated 21.12.2018. The Collector, Janjgir-Champa pursuant to the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and proposal sent by respondent No. 4, issued no objection certificate in favour of respondent No.3 on 27.5.2019. 8. The petitioners never participated in the bid. They are strangers to that proceeding. Certain objections were raised by the petitioners before the Sub-Divisional Officer but they failed to challenge the order whereby their objections were rejected. The petitioners could not establish their locus standi to prefer these petitions. The retail outlet was allotted to respondent No.3 in the year 2019 and it is operational since 2020. 9. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the NOC granted by the Collector to -6- respondent No.3 and the order passed in this regard, thus, these petitions fail and are hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi