JUDGMENT : (N. NAGARESH, J.) Dated this the 20 th day of May, 2025 The petitioner is the Managing Partner of the firm Linshas Fabrics. The firm is engaged in selling and marketing of petroleum products under the authorisation obtained from Reliance BP Mobility Limited. The petitioner has entered into an agreement with Reliance BP Mobility Limited as per the agreement dated 06.03.2025 for dispensation of diesel via their Mobile Dispensing Unit in the region of Mahe, Malappuram, Calicut and Kannur for a period of 12 months. In order to operate the Mobile Dispensing Unit on a vehicle, the petitioner has obtained CLASS-B licence issued by the Chief Controller of Explosives, Ernakulam having validity till 2030. 2. The petitioner states that a Mobile Dispensing Unit (MDU) typically consists of a fuel storage tank, a dispensing pump, a dispensing nozzle, a flow meter (optional), a hose and reel system and a control panel. The Mobile Diesel Dispensing Unit of the petitioner is operated through Goods Tanker vehicle with registration No.KL-10BF-3291. The Mobile Dispensing Unit, also known as a bowser, is designed to deliver diesel fuel on demand to various locations, including industrial sites, construction sites and even private premises. The meters and consoles are calibrated and verified by the Legal Metrology Department. 3. The petitioner was approached by the smaller fishing boats and the Beypore Fishing Harbour Boat Operators Association in the Beypore harbour to dispense diesel for boat engines, as they don’t have to travel long distance for getting the diesel in cans. The Mobile Diesel Dispensing Unit can easily approach the boat engines anchored in the harbour and dispense diesel to the users easily. 4. The petitioner, on receipt of the request, approached the Beypore fishing harbour to dispense the diesel to boat engines. However, the same was objected by the 3 rd respondent for reasons unknown to the petitioner. The petitioner was instructed to appear before the 3 rd respondent's office, wherein he showed the necessary documents for operation and the licence to operate the Unit. However, the 3 rd respondent took a stand that the petitioner should not serve diesel to the boat engine. The 3 rd respondent has not issued any written order to that effect. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a written letter to the 3 rd respondent not to interfere with the dispensing of diesel to boat engines. 5. However, the 3 rd respondent took a stand that the petitioner should not serve diesel to the boat engine. The 3 rd respondent has not issued any written order to that effect. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a written letter to the 3 rd respondent not to interfere with the dispensing of diesel to boat engines. 5. The petitioner submits that the petitioner has a valid licence and approval for distribution of diesel to any users on door-to-door delivery basis. The 3 rd respondent does not have any authority to obstruct the movement of the Fuel Dispensing Unit. It is pertinent to note that the 3 rd respondent has not issued any notice or letter stating on what grounds the petitioner shall not distribute diesel to the boat engines. The action of the 3 rd respondent in interfering and harassing the petitioner not to provide diesel to the users is arbitrary and illegal. 6. Without any power, the respondents are frequently disturbing the business of the petitioner and thereby his right to carry on his business as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) is infringed. The petitioner has the right to do his business activity without any interference or obstruction from anyone, contends the Counsel for the petitioner. 7. Government Pleader entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. The Government Pleader submitted that as far as the vehicle photographed in Ext.P4 with registration No.KL-10BF-3291, the 3 rd respondent has no objection, as the vehicle carries all the requisite licences and other documents. The issue arose since another vehicle bearing registration No.KL-58AE-5551 was used as a Mobile Fuel Dispensing Unit and the said vehicle did not possess requisite documents. Therefore, FIR has also been lodged against the said vehicle. 8. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the said offending vehicle does not belong to him and on the basis of law violations by the said vehicle, the petitioner cannot be harassed. 9. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents. 10. Admittedly, the petitioner's vehicle bearing registration No.KL-10BF-3291 possesses requisite documents and licences as on date. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be harassed in any manner with regard to running of the said vehicle and using the same as a Mobile Fuel Outlet. 9. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents. 10. Admittedly, the petitioner's vehicle bearing registration No.KL-10BF-3291 possesses requisite documents and licences as on date. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be harassed in any manner with regard to running of the said vehicle and using the same as a Mobile Fuel Outlet. The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the 3 rd respondent not to trouble the petitioner in respect of the vehicle bearing registration No. KL-10BF-3291, if no other offences are involved.