The Allahabad High Court has held that an existing petrol pump owner has no locus to challenge the approval or No Objection Certificate (NOC) granted to a rival petrol outlet merely because the establishment of the new outlet may adversely affect the financial health of his business.

A Bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary made the observation while dismissing a writ petition filed by the proprietor of an existing petrol pump at Bahraich, who had challenged the approval and NOC granted for the establishment of another petrol outlet in its vicinity.

"The petitioners are apprehending competition from the private respondent and fears that there may be a dip in the financial gain being made by the petitioners but the same cannot be a reason for the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to restrain a private party from carrying on business in accordance with law", the bench observed in its order.

Case in brief

The petitioner (M/S D.K. Automobiles) operates an Indian Oil Corporation petrol pump in Bahraich district. It was aggrieved by the allotment of a new petrol pump on an adjoining/vicinity plot to the private respondents.

It challenged the approval order dated February 9, 2026, passed by the District Magistrate, as well as the NOC dated February 13, 2026, issued by the City Magistrate.

The petitioner argued that the establishment of the new outlet was contrary to the applicable rules and guidelines governing the location, layout and access of fuel stations along State roads.

Relying on Clauses 3.1 and 3.2 of the 2022 Guidelines, it was argued that a distance of 300 meters in the case of an undivided carriageway and 1,000 meters in the case of a carriageway was required between fuel stations, subject to an exception where access was provided through a 7-meter-wide service lane.

The petitioner also argued that having two adjoining petrol pumps would adversely affect the financial health of the existing petrol pump and, as such, should not be permitted as a matter of public policy.

On the other hand, the private respondents (State authorities and Reliance BP Mobility Limited) challenged the maintainability of the writ petition.

High Court's observations

Relying upon the Supreme Court's decisions in Jas Bhai Moti Bhai Desai vs. Roshan Kumar 1975, Nagar Rice and Flour Mills v. N.T. Gowda 1970 and Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that a rival businessman cannot invoke writ jurisdiction merely to prevent a competitor from entering the market.

The Bench also referred to an earlier Allahabad High Court order wherein it was observed that a petrol pump owner has "no fundamental or statutory right" to stop another operator from coming into business near his petrol pump.

The Bench accordingly held that the petitioner "has no locus standi to maintain the present petition in its present form" and that the writ petition was not maintainable.

The Court further observed that the right of the proposed petrol-pump operators to establish their outlet was "as much as a fundamental right" as that of the existing petitioner.

It held that so long as the new operators exercised their right without impairing the petitioner's corresponding fundamental right, no injury could be said to have been caused to the existing petrol pump owner.

The Court also took note of an earlier PIL No. 293 of 2026, concerning the establishment of the same petrol outlet.

In that proceeding, the Court had been informed that the guidelines had been amended and that the distance restriction would not apply where access and egress were provided through a common service road of a minimum width of 7 meters.

The Court was also informed that a 7-meter service road had been constructed and that, unless the required road was constructed, final permission to operate the new petrol pump would not be granted.

The Bench noted that the earlier PIL had already dealt with the same objection and held that the petitioner had merely "modulated the prayer" in the present writ petition while retaining the same grounds.

It therefore described the present petition as "nothing but an abuse of the process of law". The Court also rejected the petitioner's argument that the new petrol outlet would adversely affect his business.

"...we find that the present petition is basically aimed at eliminating healthy competition and monopolistic in nature. In any case, this court cannot act as a insurance company to insure the business health of the petitioner", it remarked.

The High Court accordingly dismissed the writ petition.

Case title - M/s D.K.Automobiles Thru. Sole Proprietor Smt.Shradha Agarwal and another vs Union of India,Thru. Secy. Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas New Delhi and 7 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 586

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 586

Click here To Read/Download Order