Premature writ challenge to pending petroleum no-objection application failed; interim certificate set aside and matter remitted.

A writ court will not direct a statutory authority to process a pending application in a particular manner before the authority has taken a decision, especially where no binding Central Government guidelines governed consideration under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002. On that basis, the challenge to non-consideration of the no-objection certificate application was held premature and dismissed. The no-objection certificate issued under an interim order also could not survive independently, because the interim relief was expressly subject to the result of the writ petition. The certificate was therefore set aside and the application remitted to the District Authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition challenging non-consideration of the application for no-objection certificate under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 was premature in view of the earlier decision holding that the challenge could be raised only after a decision was taken; (ii) whether the no-objection certificate granted pursuant to the interim order could be sustained, or whether it was liable to be set aside with a direction for fresh consideration.

Issue (i): whether the writ petition challenging non-consideration of the application for no-objection certificate under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 was premature in view of the earlier decision holding that the challenge could be raised only after a decision was taken.

Analysis: The petition was filed while the District Authority had not finally decided the application. The matter was governed by the earlier common judgment in similar cases, which held that a petitioner cannot seek a direction from the Court prescribing how a statutory authority should deal with the application before the authority takes a decision. In the absence of Central Government guidelines governing the manner of consideration under Rule 144, insisting on the IRC guidelines could not then be faulted, and the challenge was therefore not maintainable at that stage.

Conclusion: The writ petition was premature and was dismissed.

Issue (ii): whether the no-objection certificate granted pursuant to the interim order could be sustained, or whether it was liable to be set aside with a direction for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The interim order had expressly stated that any certificate issued would be subject to the result of the writ petition, so any action taken on that basis was at the petitioner's own risk. Since the main writ petition was held not maintainable, the certificate issued pursuant to that interim arrangement could not stand independently. The proper course was to restore the matter to the District Authority for a fresh decision under the governing law.

Conclusion: The no-objection certificate was set aside and the application was directed to be reconsidered afresh in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The common judgment upheld the earlier view on maintainability, but granted consequential relief by undoing the interim-based certificate and remitting the application for fresh consideration.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court will not direct a statutory authority to process a pending application in a particular manner before the authority has taken a decision, and any interim relief expressly made subject to the outcome of the writ cannot confer an independent right to sustain the resulting action.

---