CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER is admittedly a licence dealer in petroleum products, particularly high Speed Diesel, at Hangarkatte in udupi Taluk of Dakshina Kannada District. He is aggrieved by the no objection certificate' granted by respondent-1 additional District Magistrate, Dakshina kannada, Mangalore, in AR Case No. R. 17 804/86-87. In the said case respondent- 3 South Kanara District Co-operative fish Marketing Federation of Mulihithiu in Mangalore applied for 'no objection certificate' to locate a high-speed diesel out-let for the benefit of the members of that Federation, who apparently use mechanised power boats for fishing. There were number of objectors, among whom petitioner was one. ( 2 ) PETITIONER's objections were three fold. First was, that respondent-3 federation itself does not own any beats and therefore it could not have applied for a consumer's out-let. The second objection was, there was no demand for high-speed diesel in the area and therefore there was no need for another outlet as already one out-let existed (i. e. , his own ). The third objection was raised by an industrial unit called 'indcraft', which pointed-out the potential threat of fire which would affect its industry on account of proximity. ( 3 ) THE District Magistrate, as is apparent from his order, visited the spot on 22/1/1987 along with several high placed officials like the Director of ports and IWF, Karwar, the Deputy director of Fisheries, Dakshina Kannada, mangalore, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Udupi Sub-Division, the Assistant Commissioner, Coondapur Sub- division, the Tahsildar, Udupi Taluk, the sales Officer, Hindusthan Petroleum corporation Limited, Mangalore, the chairman of respondent-3 Federation and also the General Manager and also the petitioner along with his advocate mr. K. P. V. Rao. In the course of his order he has discussed that the question of marketability of high-speed diesel and grant of a out-let was a matter to be decided by the High Level Co-ordination committee of oil companies and it decides that particular matter. Therefore, he only looked into the objections of indcraft about the threat of possible fire. He over-ruled that having sought the opinion of the Station Officer of Karnataka State File Force, Mangalore, who had recommended that the place is safe. Therefore, he only looked into the objections of indcraft about the threat of possible fire. He over-ruled that having sought the opinion of the Station Officer of Karnataka State File Force, Mangalore, who had recommended that the place is safe. Even the representative of Hindusthan petroleum Corporation has stated that the sto age of high-speed diesel was under-ground occupying only a small place of 20 x 20 meters in about 1/5 of an acre of land and therefore would not pose a fire hazard. Similarly, the Deputy chief Controller of Explosives, Madras, has himself to inspect the premises to satisfy himself over that question, particularly its location on the sea. It is in that connection he has granted the 'no objection certificate' as is evidenced by annexure-B. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the grant of no objection certificate' the petitioner has approached this Court inter-alia contending that there is violation Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules. ( 5 ) WHAT has been granted is only 'no objection certificate' in regard to the site. The licence is to be granted by the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives in regard to the out-let. That has not taken piace. I therefore do not think that it is a fit case in which this Court should interfere merely on the complaint of the petitioner who is attempting to project his commercial interest. The case is fully covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jasbhai motibhai Desai v Roshan Kumar, Haji bashir Ahmed and others (AIR 7976 SC 578) decided by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme,court. In the said decision the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has fully approved the decision of the Supreme Court in Nagar Rice and Flour Mills v N. T. Gowda (A. I. R. 1971 S C 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 tice-mill by another even if such setting up be in contravention of section 8 (3) (c) of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958. ( 6 ) HAVING regard to this position in law, this petition is not maintainable and there fore it is rejected. Writ petition is rejected. --- *** --- .