[2025:RJ-JP:46140] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13995/2021 Mahendra Kumar Dadarwal S/o. Shri Nathu Lal Jat, Aged About 42 Years, Village and Post-Dhanota, Tehsil- Shahpura, District- Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Public Works, Government Secretariat, Jaipur 2. The District Collector, Jaipur, Rajasthan 3. The Chief Engineer (Road), Public Works Department, P.W.D. Campus, Jacob Road, in Front Of Jaipur Club, Jaipur. 4. The Superintending Engineer (Road), Public Works Department, District Jaipur. 5. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division Shahpura, District Jaipur. 6. Dy. General Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Tel Bhawan, Sahkar Marg, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur 7. Manoj Jangir, Village and Post Dhanota, Tehsil- Shahpura, District-Jaipur (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dheeraj Tripathi, AGC with Mr. Abhishek Paliwal, Mr. Aditya Sharma, Mr. Anubhav Gupta, Mr. Amit Mittal & Mr. Gulab Chand Mittal for Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta Mr. Akshat Khandelwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN O R D E R 1. Date of conclusion of arguments 14.11.2025 2. Date on which the judgment was reserved 14.11.2025 3. Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is pronounced : Full Judgment 4. Date of pronouncement 18.11.2025 1. The instant writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking following relief:- [2025:RJ-JP:46140] (2 of 14) [CW-13995/2021] “i. By issuing writ, order of direction in the nature thereof thereby, quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 22.10.2021 granting relaxation in norms for grant of permission to access for fuel station and also in norms of Indian Road Congress. ii. By issuing writ, order of direction in the nature thereof thereby, the respondents be restrained from issuing NOC in regard to proposed site in violation of the norms and guidelines issued by the PWD in consonance with Indian Road Congress vide its notification dated 11.02.2021. iii. Any other order of direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Vide order dated 08.12.2021, the respondents were directed not to proceed further in pursuance of the order dated 22.10.2021. During the course of proceedings, on 11.10.2022, an Interlocutory Application (No.01/2022) was filed by respondent No.7 seeking vacation of ex-parte interim order dated 08.12.2021. Thereafter, vide order dated 09.10.2025, this Court observed that the application for vacating ex-parte interim order shall be considered at the time of admission, and the matter was posted for 04.11.2025. This writ petition came up before this Court for admission as well as for consideration of the application moved by respondent No.7 seeking vacation of ex-parte interim order [2025:RJ-JP:46140] (3 of 14) [CW-13995/2021] passed on 08.12.2021. However, since the arguments advanced for deciding the said application and for disposal of the writ petition were largely the same, learned counsel for both the parties were asked to address the Court on the merits of the writ petition. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, the order was reserved. 3. Facts and grounds which are culled out from the record, in brief, are that the petitioner is proprietor of M/S Ganesh Filling Station, Ajitgarh Road, Dhanota, Shapura, Jaipur and he is operating the same since year 2005. Allotment of the petrol pump outlet was allotted to him by Bhartiya Petroleum Corporation. It is averred in the writ petition that respondent No.6 had issued a Letter of Intent (LOI) in favour of respondent No.7 for opening of new retail outlet dealership at location Revenue Village Dhanota, Shapura, Jaipur and distance of said location is only 62 meters from the petitioner’s outlet. It is further averred in the writ petition that respondent No.7 does not fulfill the requirements of opening petroleum outlet because as per site inspection report, proposed site is not in accordance with the guidelines. 4. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have filed reply and denied the allegation of malice and submitted that according to the procedure established by the law, decision to relax the norms/guideline has been taken keeping in mind public policy as well as safety measures. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5 relies upon the order passed by this Court on 23.11.2016 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9487/2016 titled as “Mahesh Kumar Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation & Ors.” [2025:RJ-JP:46140] (4 of 14) [CW-13995/2021] wherein similar contentions were raised by the person praying for not allowing the respondents therein to establish Petrol Pump and for not issuing NOC in favour of private respondent and the Court vide order dated 23.11.2016 dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable at the behest of third party which had malafide intention. 5. Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 have also filed their separate reply to the writ petition and submitted that petitioner has no right to change the decision to relax the norms/guidelines being a rival competitor. It is also submitted that norms/guidelines are merely administrative in nature and does not have any statutory force. 6. The petitioner has challenged the decision dated 22.10.2021 on the ground that the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 have illegally relaxed the norms for establishment of retail outlet and have wrongfully decided to issue NOC in favour of the respondent No.7. It is submitted that the Committee established for grant of relaxation had wrongly decided to grant relaxation keeping in mind the safety measures because in view of the site inspection report, no such relaxation can be granted as proposed site is located only 11.43 meters from the centre of the road and this distance cannot be less than 15 meters in any condition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the site inspection report for the said purpose and submitted that since the norms laid down by the Indian Road Congress were required to be followed, the relaxation granted was unjustified and would affect the safety of the local people. It is submitted that despite the fact that site inspection report does not favour respondent [2025:RJ-JP:46140] (5 of 14) [CW-13995/2021] No.7, the Additional Chief Engineer had made recommendations for relaxation of norms, although he could not have done so in view of guidelines framed for this specific purpose. 8. Counsel further submits that the PWD has also issued a circular/notification dated 27.12.2004 laying down the norms for the access for fuel stations, service stations and rest areas along State Highways/MDR's/ODR's. It is submitted that as per clause 6.1 of the said circular, the norms as pointed out herein above, were required to be followed. It is stated that on 24.04.2012, the Chief Engineer (Roads), PWD, Rajasthan, Jaipur had written a letter to all the concerned authorities not to forward any case for relaxation in the norms laid down by the Indian Road Congress. 9. Relying upon the orders passed in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.3277/2017 (Sweta Devi versus State of Rajasthan &Ors. decided on 06.09.2021) and Dalpat Singh Versus Union of India reported in WLC (Raj.) 378, counsel submits that impugned decision dated 22.10.2021 is contrary to the law and liable to be quashed and set aside. 10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced by the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. The issue before this court in the present writ is whether relaxation could have been granted by the Chief Engineer, PWD, Rajasthan to open another petroleum outlet near the petitioner’s outlet or not. Before grant of NOC, site inspection report was prepared according to which distance between petitioner’s outlet and proposed site is 62 meters and proposed site is on Major [2025:RJ-JP:46140] (6 of 14) [CW-13995/2021] District Road. It is also mentioned in the report that proposed site is 11.43 meters away from the centre point of road and it is not in accordance with guidelines of IRC. It is evident from the impugned decision dated 22.10.2021 that keeping in view all these aspects and taking into note check list, Additional Chief Engineer, PWD made recommendation to relax the norms for grant of NOC and in furtherance of recommendations, decision was taken on 22.10.2021, and it was decided that NOC may be issued with certain conditions. However, the question remains whether the Additional Chief Engineer, PWD can make the recommendation to relax the norms. 12. In the present case after considering all the aspects, decision was taken to relax the norms and it was also directed that the Oil Company would comply with all the conditions on which norms have been relaxed which is evident from the letter dated 22.10.2021 itself. Keeping in view that the relaxation has been granted at the level of the Committee in pursuance of recommendations made by the Additional Chief Engineer, PWD. It is also pertinent to mention here that norms/guidelines which have been relaxed by letter/order dated 22.10.2021 are merely administrative in nature and do not have any statutory binding effect, therefore, it cannot be said that the authority concerned does not have power to change the norms or to relax the norms laid down earlier. 13. It has also been submitted by the respondents that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the order whereby the competent authority has relaxed the applicable norms and [2025:RJ-JP:46140] (7 of 14) [CW-13995/2021] guidelines through the present writ petition. It has been submitted that the norms and guidelines framed by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways are merely administrative in nature, devoid of any statutory force, and therefore, do not confer any enforceable legal right upon any individual. In such circumstances, the petitioner, being a rival dealer, cannot be permitted to assail the decision of the administrative authority taken in the exercise of its discretion to relax or modify such guidelines. 14. The submissions advanced on behalf of the respondents appears to be well-founded. As already observed, the norms and guidelines in question are purely administrative in character and do not carry any statutory sanction. Consequently, the mere fact that the petitioner operates a petroleum outlet in proximity to the proposed site cannot, in any manner, bestow upon him any legal entitlement to question or interfere with the administrative wisdom exercised by the competent authorities in the matter of relaxation of such norms. 15. I fortify my view from the full bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mithilesh Garg VS Union Of India, reported in AIR 1992 (SC) 443, wherein it is held as under:- “6. The petitioners are existing stage-carriage operators on different routes. They hold permits granted by the Regional Transport Authorities concerned. Mithlesh Garg, petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 1345 / 89 has stated that he holds a stage carriage permit and plies his vehicles on the Meerut Parikshitgarh-Hasifabad-Lal-iana and allied [2025:RJ-JP:46140] (8 of 14) [CW-13995/2021] routes under the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut. According to him prior to the enforcement of the Act, 23 permit-holders were operating on the said route but thereafter under Section 80 of the At the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut has issued 272 more permits in respect of the same route. Similar facts have been stated in the other writ petitions. As mentioned above the petitioners are permit holders and are existing operators. They are plying their vehicles on the routes assigned to them under the permits. They are in the full enjoyment of their fundamental right guaranteed to them under Article 19(1)(g). of the Constitution of India. There is no threat of any kind whatsoever from any authority to the enjoyment of their right to carry on the occupation of transport operators. There is no complaint of infringement of any of their statutory rights. Their only effort is to stop the new operators from coming in the field as competitors. We see no justification in the petitioners stand. More operators mean healthy-competition and efficient transport system. Over-crowded buses, passengers standing in the aisle, clinging to the bus-doors and even sitting on the roof-tops are some of the common sights in this country. More often one finds a bus which has noisy engine, old upholstry, [2025:RJ-JP:46140] (9 of 14) [CW-13995/2021] uncomfortable seats and continuous emission of black-smoke from the exhaust pipe. It is, therefore, necessary that there should be plenty of operators on every route to provide ample choice to the commuter-public to board the vehicle of their choice and patronise the operator who is providing the best service. Even otherwise the liberal policy is likely to help in the elimination of corruption and favoritism in the process of granting permits. Restricted licensing under the old Act led to the concentration of business in the hands of few persons thereby giving rise to a kind of monoply, adversely affecting the public interest. The apprehensions of the petitioners, that too many operators on a route are likely to affect adversely the interest of weaker section of the profession is without any basis. The transport business is bound to be ironed-out ultimately by the rationale of demand and supply. Cost of a vehicle being as it is the business requires huge investment. The intending operators are likely to be conscious of the economics underlying the profession. Only such number of vehicles would finally remain in operation on a particular route as are economically viable. In any case the transport system in a state is meant for the benefit and convenience of the public. The policy to grant permits liberally under [2025:RJ-JP:46140] (10 of 14) [CW-13995/2021] the Act is directed towards the said goal. The petitioners who are already in the business want to keep the fresh entrants out of it and as such eliminate the healthy competition which is necessary to bring efficiency in the trade. This Court in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar (1976) 3 SCR 58 posed the following questions for its determination (para 1): "Whether the proprietor of a cinema theatre holding a licence for exhibiting cinematograph films, is entitled to invoke the certiorari jurisdiction ex debito justitiae to get a No-Objection Certificate, granted under Rule 6 of the Bombay Cinema Rules, 1954 (for short, the Rules) by the District Magistrate in favour of a rival in the trade, brought up and quashed on the ground that it suffers from a defect of jurisdiction, is the principal question that falls to be determined in this appeal by special leave." 7. Sarkaria, J. speaking for the Court answered the question in the following words (paras 47, 49, 50 and 51 of AIR): "In the light of the above discussion, it is demonstrably clear that the appellant has not been denied or deprived of a legal [2025:RJ-JP:46140] (11 of 14) [CW-13995/2021] right. He has not sustained injury to any legally protected interest. In fact, the impugned order foes not operate as a decision against him, much less does it wrongfully affect his title to something. He has not been subjected to a legal wrong. He has suffered no legal grievance. He has no legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang on.… While a Procrustean approach should be avoided, as a rule the Court should not interfere at the instance of a stranger unless there are exceptional circumstances involving a grave miscarriage of justice having an adverse impact on public interests. Assuming that the appellant is a stranger, and not a busybody, then also, there are no exceptional circumstances in the present case which would justify the issue of a writ of certiorari at his instance. On the contrary, the result of the exercise of these discretionary powers, in his favour, will, on balance, be against public policy. It will eliminate healthy competition in this business which is so essential to raise commercial morality; it will tend to [2025:RJ-JP:46140] (12 of 14) [CW-13995/2021] perpetuate the appellants monopoly of cinema business in the town; and above all, it will, in effect, seriously injure the fundamental rights of respondents 1 and 2, which they have under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, to carry on trade or business subject to ‘reasonable restrictions imposed by law’. The instant case falls well-nigh within the ratio of this Courts decision in Rice and Flour Mills v. N. T. Gowda (AIR 1971 SC 246), wherein it was held that a rice mill-owner has no locus standi to challenge under Article 226, the setting up of a new rice-mill by another even if such setting up be in contravention of S. 8(3) (c) of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958- because no right vested in such an applicant is infringed. For all the foregoing reasons, we are of opinion that the appellant had no locus standi to invoke this special jurisdiction under Article 226 of the on situation. Accordingly, we answer the question posed at the commencement of this judgment, in the negative…." [2025:RJ-JP:46140] (13 of 14) [CW-13995/2021] 8. We, therefore, see no justification for the petitioners to complain against the liberalised policy for grant of permits under the Act.” 16. In Mahendra Kumar Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.12208/2018, decided on 06/09/2021), it has been held the Chief Engineer, PWD have power to change the norms or to relax the norms laid down earlier. In the said matter, relaxation was granted at the level of the Committee, chaired by the Chief Engineer, PWD and the norms were laid down by the Chief Engineer, PWD. It was further observed therein that the word 'norms' essentially connote guidelines and therefore, cannot be said to be of statutory character. While deciding the said writ petition, the order passed in the case of Sweta Devi versus State of Rajasthan (supra), relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner was also considered. The order dated 06.09.2021 was challenged by the petitioner therein by way of filing intra-court appeal being D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.838/2021, however, by order dated 09.11.2021, same was dismissed. 17. The order passed in Dalpat Singh v. Union of India (supra), on which learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance, is also of no help to him. The said decision was rendered in an entirely different factual matrix, and it does not consider that the guidelines/norms in question are mere executive instructions without statutory force. As a result, such instructions cannot be considered as “law” having binding effect. [2025:RJ-JP:46140] (14 of 14) [CW-13995/2021] 18. In view of the findings as above, this Court finds that the writ petition is sans merit. Consequently, this writ petition stands dismissed. The order/decision dated 22.10.2021 relaxing the condition to establish the petroleum outlet is upheld and the respondents are free to proceed further. The interim order passed by the Court stands vacated. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. No costs. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /92