The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has dismissed a writ petition filed by an existing petrol pump operator who opposed the approval and No Objection Certificate (NOC) granted for a new fuel outlet near its business.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary and Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that a business competitor cannot invoke the High Court’s writ jurisdiction merely because a rival outlet may affect its commercial interests.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by M/s D.K. Automobiles, through its sole proprietor Smt. Shradha Agarwal, which operates an Indian Oil petrol pump at Village Govindapur in Bahraich district, situated along Bahraich-Gonda State Highway No. 30.
The petitioner challenged the approval dated February 9, 2026, and the NOC dated February 13, 2026, granted for another petrol pump in the adjoining vicinity.
The petitioner relied on the Uttar Pradesh Government’s 2022 guidelines concerning the location, layout and access of fuel stations along State roads. It argued that prescribed distance requirements were not satisfied and that the required seven-metre-wide service road was unavailable.
It was also argued that allowing another outlet nearby would adversely affect the existing petrol pump’s financial position.
Court’s Observation
The respondents first questioned the maintainability of the petition, meaning whether the petitioner had the legal standing to bring such a challenge.
The Bench relied on earlier Supreme Court and Allahabad High Court decisions holding that an existing businessman generally cannot challenge the entry of a rival merely to protect his commercial interests.
The Court observed that the petitioner was essentially a rival businessman opposing the establishment of another petrol outlet and held that such a challenge was not maintainable.
The Bench further noted that the right to establish and operate a petrol pump, subject to lawful permissions, was not confined to the existing operator. It held that no legally protected interest of the petitioner was shown to have been infringed.
The Court also considered the seven-metre service-road issue. It recorded the State’s submission that the required service road had already been constructed and that the objection regarding the applicable guidelines therefore did not survive.
On the petitioner’s concern about loss of business, the Bench remarked,
“this court cannot act as a insurance company to insure the business health of the petitioner.”
Decision
The Court concluded that the petition was aimed at preventing competition and that the petitioner had not established infringement of any fundamental right requiring intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Finding no merit in the challenge, the Division Bench dismissed the writ petition.
Case Details
Case Title: M/s D.K. Automobiles Thru. Sole Proprietor Smt. Shradha Agarwal and Another v. Union of India, Thru. Secy. Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi and 7 Others
Case Number: Writ-C No. 5894 of 2026
Bench: Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary and Justice Shekhar B. Saraf
Decision Date: August 11, 2026
