WP(C)/6885/2024 of JINNA HUSSIAN Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS on 1 September 2026

ORDER

02.09.2026

Heard Mr. N. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. A. Bhattacharya, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Government of Assam for the respondent no. 1; Mr. H. Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 2 & 3; and Mr. H. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner for the respondent no. 4, Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

2. The petitioner who claims to be the owner of a plot of land, [land type – agricultural (salitoli)], covered by Dag no. 31 and Patta no. 1, situate at Lot No. 8, Revenue Village – Rangajan, Mouza – Balipara, Chariduar Revenue Circle, District – Sonitpur, Assam [‘the subject-plot’] had approached this Court with a grievance that the respondent no. 4 had undertaken steps for setting up of a ‘Class-A & Class-B Regular Retail Outlet within 4 kms from Khanamukh Market Tiniali on Late Rajen Borthakur Path, District – Sonitpur’ in an adjacent plot of land, covered by Dag no. 30 of Periodic Patta no. 57 and in furtherance thereof, the respondent no. 4 had applied before the respondent no. 2 on 23.07.2024 for grant of a No Objection Certificate [NOC]. Projecting that the location for the proposed Regular Retail Outlet would be in contravention of an Office Memorandum dated 07.01.2020 adopted by the Central Pollution Control Board, and certain other grounds, the petitioner had filed the writ petition seeking inter alia a direction to the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 not to issue NOC in respect of the proposed Regular Retail Outlet at the site/location, which was adjacent to the subject-plot belonging to the petitioner.

3. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 has submitted, on the basis of instructions received, that a Letter of Intent [LoI] was issued to the selected beneficiary on 18.07.2024 for setting up the proposed Regular Retail Outlet Dealership at the plot adjacent to the subject-plot, claimed to be belonging to the petitioner. As despite repeated correspondence and a Show Cause Notice dated 13.08.2026, the said selected beneficiary did not respond to it, the respondent no. 4 upon considering all the factors in its entirety and in exercise of the powers available under Clause 14 of the Letter of Intent [LoI] and the applicable BSC Guideline, has withdrawn and cancelled the LoI issued to the selected beneficiary for setting up of the proposed Regular Retail Outlet Dealership at the plot/site/location, adjacent to the subject-plot. Mr. Gupta has, therefore, submitted that with the withdrawal and cancellation of the LoI dated 18.07.2024, the petitioner has no subsisting cause of action to pursue the writ petition.

4. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in view of such development, as submitted by Mr. Gupta, the petitioner does not have any subsisting cause of action to pursue the writ petition at this stage, as the LoI has already been withdrawn and cancelled.

5. In view of the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties in the afore-stated manner that there is no subsisting cause of action, at present, for adjudication of the writ petition, the writ petition is closed.

6. The Letter bearing Ref. No. IOCL/SRMP2023/Cancellation dated 27.08.2026, placed by Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 is kept with the case record by marking it as Document ‘X’. JUDGE Comparing Assistant