1. Petitioner claims that he is running a retail petrol outlet of Indian Oil Corporation at Kadlabal, Pampore, for last four decades. He is aggrieved of process of installing and establishing of the retail petrol outlet by private respondent no.13 (hereafter for short private respondent) adjacent to the petrol outlet of the petitioner in violation of the norms and guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi vide Circular dated 25.09.2003/ 17.10. 2003.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, to bolster the case set up by petitioner, has submitted that in view of the policy of Government of India for setting up of a Petrol Outlet in Non-Urban (Rural) Stretches, there has to be a minimum distance of 1000 meters between two petrol pumps, and therefore, the installation of the petrol outlet by private respondent is in violation of the norms and guidelines issued by the Government.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the private respondent has dumped building material and tanks for installation and establishment of petrol outlet without obtaining NOC from official respondents, more particularly from respondent no.12. He also avers that the process of the private respondent for installation of petrol outlet adjacent to the petrol outlet of the petitioner is in violation of the guidelines and policy in vogue. He contends that petitioner has already approached official respondents not to issue any NOC in favour of private respondent for setting up a petrol pump near the petrol outlet of the petitioner as that amounts to violation of the guidelines issued from time to time on the subject-matter. Therefore, petitioner has filed present writ petition seeking writ of mandamus to withhold NOC in favour of private respondent and also seeks direction to respondents to follow the policy of the Government in establishing the retail petrol outlet at Kadlabal Pampore.

4. Respondents have filed reply affidavit.

5. Respondent no.12, in his reply affidavit, has insisted that the factual report in the matter was sought from the Site Engineer, who reported that the proposed petrol pump/filling station is on LHS of Jammu-Srinagar National Highway. The site is round about 685 meters away from the existing Filling Station (M/s Kashmir Traders) at Kadlabal Pampore, District Pulwama.

6. Respondent no.4 in his reply affidavit contends that the minimum distance of 01 km has to be kept between the two filling stations along the National Highway only in case of divided carriage way in plain and rolling terrains in non-urban (rural) areas as is borne out from Guideline

6.2.1(ii). The said guideline, according to respondent, is not applicable to the present case as carriage way where the new retail outlet stands allotted in favour of private respondent by the answering respondent no.4 is undivided. It is insisted that the proposed site is situated at Kadlabal Pampore which is a non-urban stretch, however, the carriage way is undivided at the Kadlabal Pampore National Highway, thus the relevant clause of Guidelines of Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, the regulation 6.2.1(i) applies to the present case, which reads as under:-

"6.2.1 PLAIN AND ROLLING TERRIAN IN NON-URBAN (RURAL) AREAS.

i. UNDIVIDED CARRIAGE WAY (for both sides of carriage way) 300m."

8. It is further submitted by respondent no.4 in its reply affidavit that they being the Corporation of Government of India are duty bound to act only in accordance with the established procedure and can in no way afford to deviate from the procedure and they strictly followed the same in the present case as well including procuring all the necessary NOCs from respective quarters.

9. Respondent No.9 in his reply affidavit has submitted that since the road sector of Kadlabal Pampore does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Project Beacon, therefore, they have no role to stop and/or allow the process of installing and establishing the retail petrol outlet by the private respondent.

10.Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter.

11.Before adverting to the merits of the case, it is appropriate to consider whether any right of the petitioner has been violated which would warrant exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction by this Court and also whether the petitioner has locus standi to present the writ petition.

12.The present petition has been filed for enforcement of guidelines, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi, vide Circular dated 25.09.2003/17.10.2003. Petitioner has not shown breach of any statutory duty or obligation towards him on part of respondents. Even petitioner has also failed to establish any injury or damage of any kind that the Statute was designed to give protection.

13.Petitioner in the present petition is allottee and running a retail outlet in the vicinity and determination of the question of location being totally in the domain of the private respondent, therefore, the petitioner cannot question establishment of a retail outlet on the ground that it is in the vicinity or on the ground that it has violated the guidelines or regulations.

14.It is a settled law that a rival businessman cannot file a writ petition challenging setting up of a similar unit by another businessman on the ground that establishing a rival business, close to his business place, would adversely affect his business interest, even if setting up of new unit is in violation of law, merely because some of the customers may switch over to rival retail outlet, does not mean that public interest will suffer rather it will benefit the consumers because when there is competition, businessmen are compelled to provide better quality products at reasonable rates. It is also canvassed that petitioner is retail outlet dealer of M/s Indian Oil Corporation, whereas private respondent has established retail outlet of Bharat Petroleum Corporation. Therefore, as rival traders, petitioner is not entitled to seek direction from this Court to forbear other traders from establishing their outlet as petitioner is apprehending loss of business on account of business rivalry.

15.It is most apposite to highlight here that the petitioner is running retail outlet of Indian Oil Corporation. He is in full enjoyment of his fundamental rights guaranteed to him 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 his right to carry on the occupation of retail outlet dealership of the Indian Oil Corporation. There is no infringement of any of his statutory rights. His only effort is to stop new operators from coming in the field as competitors. Therefore, I do not see any justification in petitioners stand to prevent the private respondent from running retail outlet in close proximity. It may not be out of place to mention here that more outlets mean healthy competition and efficient facilitation. Petitioner is already in business and he wants to keep fresh entrants out of it and, therefore, eliminate the healthy competition which is necessary to bring efficiency in the trade.

16.Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India guarantees to all, right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business, subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the State under Article 19(6).

17. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Saghir Ahmad v. State of U.P (AIR 1954 SC 728 [LQ/SC/1954/130] ) has held that fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) entitles any member of the public to carry on the business and it is a guaranteed right of every citizen of India whether rich or poor to take up and carry on, if he so wishes, the lawful business and it is only the State that can impose, that too, reasonable restrictions within the ambit of Article 19(6).

18. The writ petitioner has also misled this Court by seeking enforcement of the guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi vide Circular dated 25.09.2003/ 17.10.2003, whereas, the Government of India has subsequently notified Guidelines dated 24th July, 2013. Therefore, the Guidelines issued in 2013 were very much in force prior to filing of present writ petition by the petitioner. The writ petition is also liable to be dismissed in view of the communication dated 26.04.2019, addressed by National Highway Authority of India Ministry of Road Transport and Highway, Government of India, addressed to the Land Acquisition Collector (Additional Dy. Commissioner) Pulwama, intimating him that the land situated at west side of old National Highway at Kadlabal Pampore in District Pulwama is not coming under the alignment of National Highway-44.

19.In such circumstances, succinctly put, prayer made in writ petition on hand has no foundation and it is bound to flounder and I so hold. Thus, the prayer implored for instant petition loses its foundation. Having said that writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed and accordingly the same is dismissed along with all connected IAs.