The Rajasthan High Court has stayed a cost of ₹2,50,000 imposed by a Single Bench while hearing a dispute relating to the grant of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for the installation of a petroleum retail outlet, after observing that key issues raised in the writ petition had not been examined.

The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Ashutosh Kumar noted that the Single Bench had not examined the principal challenge relating to the validity of the NOC in light of the general conditions and siting requirements governing installation of petrol pumps, including norms prescribed by the National Green Tribunal. The appellate court indicated that the core issues recorded at the stage of admission of the writ petition had remained unaddressed.

The controversy arose from a writ petition filed by Deepak Acharya challenging the NOC issued by the Collector for establishment of a petrol pump. The challenge was founded on an alleged violation of siting norms governing installation of petroleum outlets. According to the petitioner, the outlet had been permitted within prohibited distances from sensitive locations, including approximately 25 metres from a cremation ground (Shamshan) and around 18 metres from an 11 KV electricity line, despite criteria requiring a minimum distance of 30 metres from such sensitive areas.

At the initial stage, a Single Bench had granted an interim order on October 6, 2021 restraining installation of the petroleum outlet. The interim protection subsequently continued and was later confirmed in 2025 while admitting the writ petition. The admission order and continuation of the stay were challenged by Abhishek Joshi, in whose favour the petroleum outlet had been allotted.

However, during proceedings before the Division Bench, Joshi did not press the challenge on merits and instead requested that the writ petition itself be decided expeditiously. Accepting the request, the Division Bench directed that the matter be placed on priority and requested the Single Bench to hear it on a top-priority basis.

Subsequently, the Single Bench dismissed the writ petition by an order dated May 8, 2026. While doing so, the Court imposed costs of ₹2,50,000 on the petitioner. The dismissal proceeded on the premise that the petitioner himself held a dealership of a public sector oil company and also referred to the view that an unwarranted interim order had continued for nearly five years, allegedly causing prejudice to the respondents.

Deepak Acharya thereafter preferred a special appeal before the Division Bench challenging the dismissal order and the costs imposed.

At the same time, the Division Bench noted that after dismissal of the writ petition, the petroleum outlet had already commenced operations. As an interim arrangement, the court permitted the outlet to continue functioning but clarified that such operation would not create any equitable rights in favour of the respondents.

The Division Bench also stayed the operation of the ₹2,50,000 costs imposed on the petitioner.

Case Details

Case Title: Deepak Acharya S/o Shri Prakash Chand Acharya Versus HPCL

Case No.: D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 506/2026

Date: 20/05/2026

Counsel For Petitioner: Sunil Samdaria, Adv.

Counsel For Respondent: R.N. Mathur, Sr. Adv. 

Read More: What Are GST Dept.’s Time Limits for SCNs and Adjudication Orders for FY 2018-19 to 2026-27