Allahabad HC: Govt offices cannot stall business licences indefinitely; delay violates Constitution
The Allahabad High Court has held that government offices cannot indefinitely delay business approvals, ruling that a two-year delay in issuing a no objection certificate (NOC) for a petrol pump was arbitrary and amounted to “malice in law”. The court said unexplained administrative inaction that prevents a citizen from carrying on a lawful trade cannot withstand scrutiny under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution.
A division bench of Justices J J Munir and Indrajeet Shukla was hearing a writ petition filed by Rakesh Kumar Gupta, who sought a direction to the District Magistrate, Fatehpur, to issue an NOC for setting up a retail petrol pump. Gupta had received a letter of intent from Reliance BP Mobility Limited on March 29, 2024, and had secured all statutory clearances except the district magistrate’s NOC.
The case took an unusual turn when, despite repeated requests and a revised government policy simplifying the approval process, the application remained pending for over two years. The oil company had sought the NOC on July 1, 2024, but no decision was taken, forcing Gupta to approach the high court.
On June 22, 2026, the court sought an explanation for the delay. Unsatisfied with the response, it directed the district magistrate to appear personally on June 24. The NOC was finally issued through a personal affidavit filed on June 25, after which the bench directed the authorities and the oil company to proceed with the project.
In its judgment delivered on July 30, the bench held that “an arbitrary infringement of the right of occupation, trade or business in its natural course erodes and subverts the basic facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees the right to live with dignity.” It further stated that an unjustified and arbitrary delay in permitting a citizen to carry on a lawful trade must withstand the combined constitutional scrutiny of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21.
Addressing the doctrine of “malice in law”, the court clarified that legal malice does not require proof of personal ill will. It arises when a public authority acts without lawful justification or disregards its statutory obligations. The court observed that the delay in decision-making, without any plausible cause, itself indicates malice in law and exhibits arbitrariness.
The state had argued that the delay occurred because the police report required for processing the application had been submitted late, and informed the court that a clerk had been awarded a censure entry. The bench rejected this explanation, stating that neither the district magistrate’s personal affidavit nor the record disclosed any reasonable or plausible justification for the delay of more than two years.
This ruling reinforces the constitutional guarantee that citizens have the right to pursue lawful occupations without being subjected to arbitrary administrative delay. It also serves as a reminder to public authorities that they must act within reasonable timeframes and provide cogent reasons for any delay, failing which their actions may be struck down as unconstitutional.
