Authorities Cannot Withhold a Retail-Outlet NOC Indefinitely Without a Reasoned Decision on the Application.

The petitioner, who had a stated 90% physical disability, received a Letter of Intent from Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) for a retail outlet at Rosera, subject to arranging suitable land and obtaining the necessary clearances

He arranged land and obtained various permissions, but the District Magistrate, Samastipur, did not issue the required NOC.

The State relied on a Forest Department report that the approach road fell within reserved forest and that approval from the competent Forest authority was required; an earlier conditional NOC was subject to that clearance.

IOCL had requested the NOC, including by letter dated 7 September 2017, and the outlet remained uncommissioned

The petitioner sought, among other reliefs, an NOC under Section 144 of the Petroleum Act, 1934.

1. Whether the continued non-issuance of the NOC, without a final decision on the petitioner’s request in accordance with applicable rules, could be sustained

2. Whether the District Magistrate should be directed to reconsider the NOC request in light of the materials and reports on record

The judgment did not interpret Section 144 of the Petroleum Act, 1934, or cite any precedent.

The Court applied the principle that an authority cannot indefinitely withhold a decision on an NOC request without taking a final decision under the applicable rules

The Court’s operative direction was that the authority consider the NOC request afresh “in accordance with law” and on the basis of the available materials and reports

The Court noted that the petitioner had pursued the matter for several years, that IOCL had repeatedly sought the NOC, and that the outlet remained uncommissioned for want of it

Although the State identified the outstanding Forest clearance and disputed that the earlier conditional NOC remained effective, the Court did not itself determine whether that clearance had been obtained or whether an NOC must issue.

It held only that the request required a final decision under the applicable rules, and directed reconsideration on the record

The District Magistrate, Samastipur, was directed to consider the petitioner’s NOC request afresh, in accordance with law and on the basis of the materials and reports on record, and to take a reasoned decision within three months of receiving or being furnished a copy of the order

The Court did not direct that the NOC be granted.