Bald Assertion Of Being RTI Activist Not Enough For PIL: MP High Court Dismisses Plea

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation challenging the No Objection Certificate granted to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited for a petrol and diesel outlet in Harda, holding that the petitioner lacked the locus standi to maintain the plea and that the challenge was, in any event, without merit.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal was hearing a petition filed by Vijay Bajaj, who described himself as an RTI activist and resident of Harda district, seeking quashing of the NOC dated December 30, 2024, issued by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Harda, in favour of HPCL for a retail outlet on land in Village Kulharda. He also sought a restraint on construction of the outlet, and a direction for a fresh, independent environmental and safety assessment.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Alka Singh argued that the proposed site lay amid a busy commercial and residential locality, close to a hospital, a diagnostic centre, a shopping mall and the bus stand, making the outlet a hazard to residents. She contended that the NOC was granted without a registered lease or ownership document in HPCL's favour, that the recorded distance of the nearest structure was wrongly noted as 83 feet against an actual 63 feet, and that the site panchanama bore no independent witness, suggesting collusion. Reliance was placed on Rule 131(1)(iii) of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, along with past incidents, including a fire at another petrol pump in Harda and a firecracker factory blast in the town in February 2024, to argue that fuel outlets in congested localities pose recurring hazards.

Senior Advocate Anoop Nair, with Advocate Mihit Lunawat, appeared for HPCL; Advocate Aditya Sharma appeared for respondent no.4.

The bench first examined whether the petitioner could invoke public interest jurisdiction at all. It observed that the petition rested on "the bald assertion that the petitioner is an RTI activist," with nothing to show sustained public-spirited work in the area, or that he approached the court "free of any personal interest in the subject land or its vicinity." Relying on Surendra Pratap Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the court reiterated that a self-serving claim of being a social worker cannot alone satisfy the test of locus standi in a PIL.

Even otherwise, the court found the petition unsustainable on merits. It noted that the NOC had followed clearances from the Superintendent of Police, the Pollution Control Board, the Town and Country Planning Department and the Fire Department, besides a site inspection by the Sub Divisional Officer, the Revenue Inspector and the Halka Patwari. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, the bench held that once expert statutory authorities have applied their minds and granted clearances, "it is not for this Court... to re-appreciate the suitability of the site or to substitute its own assessment for that of the specialised bodies."

On the distance discrepancy, the court held this was "essentially a dispute as to measurement on the spot" within the domain of the inspecting officers, and did not by itself establish mala fides. The absence of an independent panchanama witness, it said, did not vitiate the process absent evidence of collusion, while the petitioner's claim over adjoining land was a private title dispute for a civil or revenue forum.

Addressing the firecracker blast analogy, the court distinguished the two situations, noting that the earlier tragedy stemmed from unregulated storage of explosives in a residential area, whereas the outlet was a "regulated activity" subject to continuing safeguards under law.

The bench added that rising demand for fuel outlets necessarily requires them to be sited near inhabited and commercial areas, and that this alone cannot ground interference once due process has been followed. Finding no merit "both on the ground of want of locus standi as well as on merits," the court dismissed the writ petition.

Case Title: Vijay Bajaj vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: July 22, 2026

Bench: Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal