In a writ petition filed before the Allahabad High Court seeking the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to command the District Magistrate, Fatehpur to grant a ‘No Objection Certificate’ in the petitioner’s favour for installing a retail outlet of petrol without any further delay, a Division Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla disposed of the petition while directing Reliance BP Mobility (oil company) to proceed in the matter based on the Letter of Intent issued by them.
The petitioner applied for the allotment of a retail outlet and was issued a Letter of Intent dated 29-03-2024 by Reliance BP Mobility Ltd., Eldeco Corporate Chambers 2, 9th Floor, Vibuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. Thereafter, the petitioner was required to submit a NOCs from various authorities like the Revenue Department, Electricity Department, Stamp Department, Fire Department, Pollution Control Board, and the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). Reliance BP Mobility then asked for a NOC from the office of the District Magistrate. However, the DM’s NOC was not issued to the petitioner despite a lapse of more than two years.
By a revised policy dated 18-12-2025, the State Government substantially simplified the procedure for grant of NOC and applicable norms were relaxed, but even then, the DM was not persuaded to issue the NOC, which was evident from a personal affidavit. On 25-06-2026, the DM filed her personal affidavit along with the NOC. Taking note of the same, the Court directed the DM to take up the matter with Reliance BP Mobility for further recourse.
The Court stated that the non issuance of NOC without any plausible cause by the DM, who could not defend her inaction for 2 years attracted the doctrine of maline in law and indicates arbitrariness. It was said that unlike malice in fact, malice in law may be inferred when a public authority or an individual acts in deliberate defiance of law or on misconceived grounds. In the present case, the Court found malice in law to be evident as the DM had absolutely no explanation for the delay except for slashing a petty clerk by her mighty sword.
It was said that
“
“malice in law does not necessarily imply personal ill-will, spite or animosity on the part of the authority concerned. Rather, it denotes an action taken without lawful justification, for an unauthorized purpose, or in disregard of the statutory scheme governing the exercise of power.”
The Court stated that the ambit of Article 14 was substantially expanded by the Supreme Court by including executive discretion under its ambit. It was said that the arbitrary action of not taking a prompt decision in utter disregard of government orders was clearly indicative of the fact that the petitioner was a victim of red tapism in the bureaucratic set up in democracy. Referring to Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248, the Court stated that the doctrine of the golden triangle was expounded by holding that Articles 14, 19, and 21 are not mutually exclusive but are interrelated and must be read harmoniously.
It was stated that the right to establish and operate a retail fuel outlet, subject to fulfilment of the statutory and regulatory requirements, is an integral facet of the right to carry on trade and business guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g). The Court said that unjustifiably impeding the same by arbitrary and unexplained inaction bears upon an individual’s right to livelihood and to live with dignity. The Court stated that
“
“Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions, and it cannot be cribbed, cabined and confined with traditional and doctrinaire limits.”
The Court noted that a clerk had been punished with a censure entry when the higher officers were reminded of their duties and said that the action now taken to issue the NOC in haste could have been taken at leisure long back. Since no other point was left for adjudication on merits, the Court directed Reliance BP Mobility to proceed in the matter based on the Letter of Intent expeditiously. The Court also expressed its expectation from the DM to act with promptitude in all matters where citizens’ rights are involved and to keep the DM’s Office responsive as well as in order.
Thus, the petition was disposed of.
ALSO READ: SC Issues Notice to Centre on Activist Zakia Soman’s Plea Seeking Ban on Polygamy Among Muslims
