JUDGMENT 1. - Aggrieved by the withdrawal of the N.O.C. to set up retail outlet for petrol and diesel, on the basis of which letter of intent had also been issued to the petitioner, he has filed this writ petition. 2. The petitioner applied for allotment of dealership (retail outlet) of petrol pump at Dantaramgarh, District Sikar and was eventually awarded such dealership of IBP Company Ltd. (for short-the oil company) after complying with various requirements. The letter of intent was issued to the petitioner on 3/4th February, 2004. Petitioner then applied for and was granted No Objection Certificate by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dantaramgarh for setting up retail outlet in the land of khasra No. 1970 measuring 0.30 hectares. He also obtained No Objection Certificate dated 8.4.2004 from Gram Panchayat, Dantaramgarh, Panchayat Samiti Dantaramgarh to the same effect. Superintendent of Police, Sikar issued the No Objection Certificate on 12.4.2004 and Executive Engineer, PWD, Division-I, Sikar also issued the No Objection Certificate on 12.4.2001. District Magistrate, Sikar considering all the aforesaid certificates of no objection also issued a no objection certificate on 6.5.2004 in favour of the oil company for setting up the retail outlet at the proposed site. It was on that bass that the aforesaid land of the petitioner was ordered to be converted for non agricultural use to set up petrol pump vide order dated 6.8.2004. Suddenly, however, the oil company withdrew the letter of intent vide its order dated 15.7.2004. While the petitioner preferred writ petition before this Court, one Hardeva Ram also preferred writ petition challenging ,election of the petitioner. This Court vide its judgment dated 19.12.2005 while dismissing the writ petition filed by Hardeva Ram quashed the order passed by the oil company (Annexure-5), on the premise that order was passed without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and required the oil company to proceed in the matter in accordance with law and decide it afresh after issuance of show cause notice to the petitioner and affording him opportunity of hearing. The oil company after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner passed a fresh order and directed that the letter cf intent originally issued to the petitioner on February 3/4, 2004 continues to be valid. When this haopened, the District Magistrate, Sikar vide order dated 23.3.2006 suddenly withdrew the NOC granted to the petitioner which was challenged by him in a separate petition. When this haopened, the District Magistrate, Sikar vide order dated 23.3.2006 suddenly withdrew the NOC granted to the petitioner which was challenged by him in a separate petition. This Court while passing the interim order, stayed the operation of the order cancelling NOC. In the meantime a separate writ petition was filed by respondent No. 6 Smt. Jaishree Mahariya, who had already been allotted the retail outlet on the same road though diagonally opposite side of the site of the retail outlet allotted to the petitioner. She relied on the judgment of Dalpat Singh v. Union of India & Ors., 2005 (4) WLC (Raj.) 378 . The writ petition was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the respondents to follow the norms and directions issued by this Court in Dalpat Singh, supra. The petitioner filed special appeal before the division bench of this Court against the aforesaid judgment passed in writ petition of Smt. Jai Shri Mahariya. It was at that stage that the Additional Chief Engineer, PWD on 3.5.2006 directed the Executive i Engineer, PWD, Sikar for cancellation of the NOC granted to him on 12.4.2004. Consequently, the Executive Officer passed order dated 4.5.2006 cancelling the aforesaid NOC dated 12.4.2004. Based on the aforesaid cancellation order, the District Magistrate also in turn passed an order on 20.6.2006 directing the Executive Engineer, PWD, Division-I, Sikar for ensuring compliance of the order dated 2.6.2006 passed by this Court in writ petition of Smt. Jaishree Mahariya with a further direction to ensure that no work relating to petrol pump in question is carried out in. violation of the standards so fixed. The Executive Engineer vide its order dated 20.6.2006 itself directed Assistant Engineer, PWD, Sub-Division-I, Dantaramgarh for stopping the construction work and the petrol pump and sent site inspection report to Executive Engineer. Petitioner then served a notice for demand of justice dated 28.6.2006 on the respondents. Oil company also protested to the Chief Engineer (Roads), PWD against the cancellation of NOC granted to the petitioner. The aforesaid orders were passed when the appeal of the petitioner was pending before the division bench which while disposing . of the appeal granted the opportunity to the petitioner to challenge the cancellation of NOC. Hence the present writ petition. 3. The aforesaid orders were passed when the appeal of the petitioner was pending before the division bench which while disposing . of the appeal granted the opportunity to the petitioner to challenge the cancellation of NOC. Hence the present writ petition. 3. Shri G.K. Garg, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that number of illegal orders that have been passed against the petitioner is result of the influence exerted by the respondent No. 6 who was allotted a petrol pump on the opposite side of the same road though at some distance. The site of the petitioner's petrol pump was diagonally opposite and staggered. The Executive Engineer illegally held that no objection certificate granted earlier by PWD was issued by mistake. It is incorrectly said that norms contained in Regulation of Indian Road Congress, 1983 were violated thereby. In fact, the Executive Engineer did not at all apply his mind to this question because he was acting under the dictates of Additional Chief Engineer who with a pre-determined mind issued a direction to him on 5 3.5.2006 to cancel the NOC dated 12.4.2004. Though the Additional Engineer did not indicate any reason whatsoever in his order, but he passed the said order only on receiving complaints from respondent No. 6 who was a business rival of the petitioner. The NOC originally issued to the petitioner was not in any manner contrary to any directions or observations made by 3 this Court in Dalpat Singh, supra. It was argued that norms which were applicable at the time of grant of letter of intent as also when the original NOC was issued were fully complied with. There was neither any mistake, nor misrepresentation made by the petitioner on that aspect. The respondent authorities have misconstrued and misapplied the judgment of this Court in Dalpat Singh, supra, while cancelling the NOC granted to the petitioner. While referring to the impugned order passed by the Executive Engineer, Shri G.K. Garg has argued that the Executive Engineer was wrong in holding that the petrol pump/retail outlet of the petitioner was not located at the distance prescribed under the Rules. He in this connection while referring to clause 4.1 of the Indian Road Congress Regulations argued that the clear distance between two adjacent fuel filling-cum-service stations should not be less than 300 metrs. He in this connection while referring to clause 4.1 of the Indian Road Congress Regulations argued that the clear distance between two adjacent fuel filling-cum-service stations should not be less than 300 metrs. but this clause would not be applicable to the instant case because two petrol pumps in question are not located adjacent to each other. In fact, clause 4.3 would apply to such a case which inter alia provides that fuel filling stations should be well distributed on both sides of the road so that vehicles do not have to cut across the traffic to reach a fuel filling station. The fuel filing station on opposite sides shall be staggered. It was argued that it was a case where two pumps are located diagonally opposite to each other though staggered, thus the requirement of minimum distance of 300 meters between two adjacent fuel filling stations need not be adhered to. Shri G.K. Garg, the learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the judgment of Mithilesh Garg v. U.O.I., reported in AIR 1992 SC page 443 argued that in that case it was held by their Lordships that rival businessman cannot file Writ Petition on the ground that establishing rival business venture in his place violates provisions of law as there is no vested right in the applicant which can be enforced in law. Shri G.K. Garg further submitted that allotment of the petrol pump/retail outlet allotted to respondent No. 6 has already been cancelled pursuant to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court on allegation of irregularity made in the allotment of large number of retail outlets. She has, therefore, even otherwise, seized to have any locus standi in the matter. The petitioner has already raised the substantial construction and made huge investments and yet the work of commission of petrol pump is lying stand still just because respondent No. 6 has been creating hurdles for him at different stages and before different authorities. In fact, Shri G.K. Garg argued that the no objection certificate granted to the petitioner was cancelled on the basis of a complaint made by respondent No. 6 during the pendency of his writ petition and thus the respondents have attempted to overreach the process of the law and it was a clear case of arbitrary and mala fide exercise of power. The Additional Chief Engineer as well as Executive Engineer have no authority to stop the construction work. No opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner by either Additional Chief Executive Engineer or even by the District Magistrate while cancelling different no objection certificates. The impugned action has thus been taken in utter breach of the principles of natural justice and is, therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 4. On the other hand, Shri B.K. Sharma, the learned Deputy Government Advocate and Shri Akhil Simlote appearing for respondent No. .6 opposed the writ petition and argued that this Court in Dalpat Singh, supra, held that minimum distance between two outlets is one km. but different companies are installing their petrol pump in the same area which should be avoided and this happens because such companies have no co-ordination amongst themselves. It was argued that according to Indian Road Congress guidelines and instructions issued by the Chief Engineer (Road), PWD, Rajasthan, the proposed outlet should be established at least 300 meters away from the already existing outlet. In the present case, such distance was ranging only between 50 and 70 meters. The NOC was, therefore, wrongly issued earlier and the respondents had all the authority to revoke it. It was argued that the impugned orders dated 20.10.2006 passed by the Executive Engineer as also District Magistrate were in fact passed in compliance of the judgment passed by this Court in the writ petition of respondent No. 6 on 2.6.2006 according to which the retail outlet could not be permitted to come up on the site in violation of guidelines issued by the concerned authorities. It was submitted that the petitioner while earlier approaching the authorities concealed this material fact in his application as to the existence of retail outlet in close vicinity which was allotted to respondent No. 6. It has been denied that the impugned actions have been taken at the instance or under the influence of respondent No. 6. Apart from the guidelines laid by Indian Road Congress, the norms prescribed by the Chief Engineer (Roads), PWD his order dated 27.11.2004 were equally binding for any new site of petrol pump. There was no violation of any principles of natural justice because the impugned orders were passed in compliance of the judgment passed by this Court. It was, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 5. There was no violation of any principles of natural justice because the impugned orders were passed in compliance of the judgment passed by this Court. It was, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 5. Shri Krishna Verma, the learned counsel for the oil company-respondent No. 7 has supported the case of the petitioner and has argued that the NOC originally issued on 6.5.2004 was correctly issued by Collector, Sikar. This NOC was in conformity with the norms and guidelines laid down by Indian Road Congress which was applicable at the relevant time. He also relied on clause 4.3 of the aforesaid guidelines and argued that two petrol pumps being not adjacent to each other, if they are located diagonally opposite and their situation is staggered, even if the inter se distance between them is less than 300 meters, that would not violate clause 4.1 of the said guidelines for the simple reason that clause 4.1 did not apply to such a case. According to him also the impugned orders have wrongly been issued and he, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed in terms of the prayers made above. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 7. From what has been narrated above, it is quite evident that the cause of litigation between the petitioner, on the one hand and the respondent No. 6, on the other, was regarding location of the petrol pump allotted to each one of them. While petrol pump was earlier allotted to respondent No. 6 by Indian Oil Corporation, the petitioner secured similar allotment though from another oil company-IBP, across the road. In course of time now IBP itself has been merged, as narrated in its reply, with Indian Oil Corporation itself w.e.f. 2.5.2007. There has been a significant subsequent development which is that the allotment of petrol pump made to respondent No. 6 has itself been cancelled pursuant to the directions issued by the Supreme Court. But those facts need to be viewed in the light of factual background enumerated in the beginning of this judgment. There has been a significant subsequent development which is that the allotment of petrol pump made to respondent No. 6 has itself been cancelled pursuant to the directions issued by the Supreme Court. But those facts need to be viewed in the light of factual background enumerated in the beginning of this judgment. What in substance is however required to be examined is whether the impugned order passed by the Executive Engineer cancelling the NOC earlier granted and based on that consequential order of cancellation of NOC b, the District Magistrate, both dated 20.6.2006 can be sustained in law. 8. The perusal of the aforesaid two impugned orders would in fact indicate that both the authorities refused under the judgment dated 2.6.2006 passed in the writ petition filed by Shri Jaishree Maharia. In other words, they have made out the impugned orders to have been passed in purported compliance of the aforesaid judgment of this Court. Prior to examining the validity of the impugned orders independently on their merits, it would. be appropriate to first examine whether any such direction was at all given by this Court while deciding the writ petition of respondent No. 6 on 2.6.2006 is said to be now owned by respondent No. 6. The perusal of the judgment dated 2.6.2006 would reveal that while disposing of this writ petition all that this Court directed was that "the respondents are at liberty to proceed further after following the norms prescribed and directions issued by this Court in the case of Dalpat Singh v. UOI and shall ensure that retail outlet should not be allotted to any of the person violating the guidelines and norms prescribed by the authorities from time to time." We will have to thereafter look at the judgment in Dalpat Singh, supra, to find out as to what exactly was the ratio of that judgment. The petitioner in that case claimed himself to be a social worker and filed the writ petition in the interest of public at large. But incidentally his personal interest was also involved, therefore, the writ petition was laid before the Single Bench. Whit was alleged was that the respondents while were allotting petrol pumps were following norms and conditions f,iescribed by the Union of India. But incidentally his personal interest was also involved, therefore, the writ petition was laid before the Single Bench. Whit was alleged was that the respondents while were allotting petrol pumps were following norms and conditions f,iescribed by the Union of India. It was in that context that learned Single Judge of this Court in Dalpat Singh, supra, reproduced policy Circular issued by Ministry of Road Transport and Highways dated 25.9.2004. But that was a Circular which is sacroscanct. That Circular was applicable for sitting of fuel stations along national highway whereas as per point 6.2, the minimum distance between two fuel stations along the national highway would be, for plain and rolling terrain in non-urban (Rural) Areas is 300 meters. In para 17 of that judgment, reference has been made to the notification dated 6.7.2004 containing policy and guidelines for the purpose for of installation of petrol pumps which provided that the norms laid down by Indian Road Congress in this respect shall be applied. Reference has also been made to the Circular dated 27.12.2004 which is sought to be relied on by the respondents herein too. While referring to these guidelines in para 19 of the judgment in the case of Dalpat Singh, it was observed that no new RO will be allowed to come up within one kilometer of intersection of Highways which would mean the junction of National Highway with another National Highway and State Highway. In that context, the Court observed that minimum distance between two outlets should be one km, but different companies are installing their petrol pump in cluster which should be avoided and companies ought to have coordination with each other. The Court while concluding the judgment directed the companies to strictly follow the guidelines framed by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways and by Union of India and venue Department and Public Works Department, Local Self Dep'a1ti 1e . unicipal Corporation, Food & Civil Supplies Department, Jaipur Development Authority, UIT and other departments of the Government of Rajasthan. In substance, therefore, the judgment was reiteration of those guidelines which were issued by different Government authorities of Central Government or the State Government from time to time on the question of setting up of retail outlet. unicipal Corporation, Food & Civil Supplies Department, Jaipur Development Authority, UIT and other departments of the Government of Rajasthan. In substance, therefore, the judgment was reiteration of those guidelines which were issued by different Government authorities of Central Government or the State Government from time to time on the question of setting up of retail outlet. The ratio of the judgment was, therefore, not strictly such as would require that even if two petrol pumps which are not adjacent and are situated diagonally opposite having staggered situation, yet in such case the requirement of maintaining distance of 300 meters between them would have to be adhered to. In fact, clause 4.1 and 4.3 which are referred to for interpretation in the present case did not directly fall for consideration of this Court in that case. Here it is not the case of the respondents that petrol pump in question is located on national highway. It is not their case either that the guidelines of Indian Road Congress, 1983 specifically clause 4.1 and 4.3 have seized to be in force or are not applicable. They are however additionally seeking to rely on the norms laid down by the Chief Engineer in its order dated 27.12.2006. In the first place no reference whatsoever has been made therein to the Circular dated 27.12.2004. In fact, the impugned order refers to the Circular dated 17.1.2004 issued by Secretary PWD in which the direction was issued by District Collector to adhere to the norms and guidelines laid by the Indian Road Congress in such natters. - at is according to that instruction that in the impugned order of the Executive Engineer he insisted on maintaining distance of 300 meters between two outlets. Though the Circular dated 27.12.2005 was not placed on record by either of the parties. Even then, if the strength of the argument is examined it is clear that this Circular was issued on 27.12.2005 and thus there is no manner of doubt that this Circular did not exist when the NCC was originally issued to the petitioner on 12.4.2004. Besides the Circular being administrative in nature cannot be applied retrospectively and cannot by any stretch of interpretation relied on to withdraw an order which has come to accrue certain rights in favour of the petitioners. Besides the Circular being administrative in nature cannot be applied retrospectively and cannot by any stretch of interpretation relied on to withdraw an order which has come to accrue certain rights in favour of the petitioners. The petitioner by acting on such instructions and guidelines then prevalent, altered his position by making huge investments. The respondents are now estopped from withdrawing the earlier NOC on the basis of Circular/instructions which were not available at the time when the original NOC was issued. Even on merits, perusal of this Circular would reveal that the impugned orders are not sustainable in law because even if the respondents were seeking to pass such orders in purported compliance of the judgment of this Court on 2.6.2006, in the writ petition of respondent No. 6, yet they could not accordingly determine themselves as to which guidelines/circular/instructions would be applicable in the matter and how and in what manner the NOC earlier granted by them was wrong. They could not held that the earlier NOC was granted by mistake and was secured by the petitioner by concealing material facts without providing the opportunity to the petitioner to explain his position and to impress upon them as to which of the norms contained in the guidelines laid down by the Indian Road Congress, 1983 with instructions of the Secretary PWD dated 17.1.2004 would be applicable and the Circular newly issued by the Chief Engineer (Road), PWD, Rajasthan dated 27.12.2004 would not be applicable to his case. All this was done behind the back of the petitioner without providing any opportunity of hearing to him. This has resulted in gross violation of principles of natural justice. 9. Even otherwise, the orders issued by the Executive Engineer, Sikar and District Magistrate, Sikar have been passed without the application of mind. Even though the Executive Engineer has sought to make his order reasoned and speaking one, but at the same time, on closer scrutiny of the order, it would be evident that he has passed this order in compliance of the instructions issued to him by Additional Chief Engineer, PWD, Jaipur dated 3.5.2006. It would thus be clear that he has merely dittoed the instructions of his superior authority. The District Collector also similarly while passing the order,. dated 20.4.2006 directed the Executive Engineer to do so in compliance of the instructions issued by the Additional Chief Engineer on 3.5.2006. It would thus be clear that he has merely dittoed the instructions of his superior authority. The District Collector also similarly while passing the order,. dated 20.4.2006 directed the Executive Engineer to do so in compliance of the instructions issued by the Additional Chief Engineer on 3.5.2006. By the discussion as aforesaid, it would be clear that the impugned orders have been passed by the respondents is on given and proven facts amounts to colourable and arbitrary exercise of power, thus violating mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. 10. In view of what has been discussed above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The impugned orders dated 3.5.2006 (Annexure-14), dated 4.5.2006 (Annexure-15) and dated 20.6.2006 (Annexure-16) are quashed and set aside and it is declared that the NOC issued to the petitioner on 12.4.2004 would hold good.Writ Petition Allowed. *******