JUDGMENT : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Considering the nature of controversy involved in the matter, in view of orders dated 19.08.2016, Rule is made returnable forthwith and Writ Petition is heard finally with consent of the parties. 2. Only question raised by the petitioner is Whether respondent no.2 can be permitted to have a retail outlet on same highway in the vicinity of petitioner, at a distance of less than 300 meters? 3. During the pendency of this Writ Petition, distance between the two spots has been verified and a communication with map dated 18.08.2017 shows that the Sub Divisional Engineer, Public Works Department, Deulgaon Raja has found distance between site of petitioner and site of respondent no.2 to be 304 meters. This communication is brought on record by respondent no.2 with his affidavit on 24.11.2017, and thereafter the matter was listed before this Court on 18.12.2017, 08.01.2018, 12.01.2018 and today. Petitioner has not countered this position. On the contrary, during arguments effort has been made to show that said distance has to be 1000 meters. 4. Shri Dhengale, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner has invited our attention to assertions in paragraph no.10 of the Writ Petition to show that distance has to be minimum 1000 meters and in present facts it is less than 900 sq. ft. 5. Shri Sambre, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1, Shri Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.2 and Ms. Chandurkar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.6 have relied upon provisions contained in Guidelines for Access, Location and Layout of Roadside Fuel Stations and Service Stations (3rd Revision). These guidelines are also relied upon by the petitioner, and he has produced the same as Annexure-8 with 4. his Writ Petition. He has referred to these guidelines as “Indian Road Congress Guidelines”. 6. Perusal of said guidelines particularly, Clause 1.2 shows that the same are finalized in consultation with the Ministry of Petroleum and Oil Companies. Nobody has disputed its binding nature before us. 7. Clause 4.5.3 of these Guidelines stipulates that there shall be not be any median gap on a divided carriageway within a distance of 300 meters on each side of the fuel station. Clause 4.6. stipulates that minimum distance between two fuel stations has to be 300 meters in plain and rolling terrain in nonurban [rural] areas. 7. Clause 4.5.3 of these Guidelines stipulates that there shall be not be any median gap on a divided carriageway within a distance of 300 meters on each side of the fuel station. Clause 4.6. stipulates that minimum distance between two fuel stations has to be 300 meters in plain and rolling terrain in nonurban [rural] areas. This 300 meters minimum distance is attracted when retail outlet is on an undivided carriage way. Clause 4.6.1 [i] deals with this location specifically. It is mentioned that it is applicable for both sides of carriage way. 8. Clause 4.6.1 [ii] speaks of divided carriageway, where there is no gap in median at “this location and stretch”. The minimum distance provided therein is 1000 meters, and this is followed by a note. Note [i] stipulates that minimum distance of 300 meters between two fuel stations on both sides of the road is applicable for undivided carriageway only. In case of divided carriage way with no gap in medians, the distances restrictions is not applicable on opposite side of the fuel station and the minimum distance between two fuel stations on same side shall be 1000 meters. We are not concerned with other clauses in present controversy. 9. The undisputed communication issued by the Department of State Government does not show that the carriageway with which we are concerned, is having any median. Petrol pump of petitioner is of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, while proposed petrol pump of respondent no.2 is of Bharat Petroleum Corporation. 10. Petitioner also has not in his petition pointed out that the carriageway in front of his petrol pump is having any median. He has also not pointed out that the petrol pump of respondent no.2 is on same side of the road i.e. on his side of carriageway only. However, respondent nos. 1 and 2 have not disputed the fact that petrol pump of petitioner and respondent no.2 are on same side of said carriageway. The map on record also shows this position. Bare reading of Clauses 4.6, 4.6.1 and note [ii] supra, reveals that the Authority framing these guidelines have looked into the possibility of vehicles traveling in either direction approaching the petrol pump for refilling. When there is no median [divider] in existence, the minimum distance between two petrol pumps stipulated is 300 meters. Bare reading of Clauses 4.6, 4.6.1 and note [ii] supra, reveals that the Authority framing these guidelines have looked into the possibility of vehicles traveling in either direction approaching the petrol pump for refilling. When there is no median [divider] in existence, the minimum distance between two petrol pumps stipulated is 300 meters. When there is a median i.e., Divider and therefore, vehicle traveling on other side of the road is unable to approach the petrol pump, which is located on right hand side of the vehicle, distance stipulated is 1000 meters. This is obviously due to the fact that the vehicle on other side of the road divider cannot approach such petrol pump. Hence, the vehicles proceeding only in one direction can be catered by a petrol pump, and therefore, to add to number of its customers, the distance between two petrol pumps has been increased. 11. When Clause 4.5.3 is understood in this backdrop, it stipulates that there should not be any median gap on divided carriageway within the distance of 300 meters on each side of the fuel station. This distance of 1000 meters therefore, is attracted when there is no break in medians to enable the vehicle proceeding in other direction to take 'U' turn and to approach the petrol pump on right hand side of the divider. If there is such a break or gap within 300 meters or near such petrol pump, this 1000 meters norm does not apply. Note [i] which stipulates that when there is no such gap in medians, distance of 1000 meters is applicable, is relevant qua location of other petrol pump on same side of the road. If such a petrol pump is on other side of the road, i.e. divider, this norm of 1000 meters is not attracted. Again this is because of impossibility of a vehicle traveling on other side of a divider of carriageway to approach the petrol pump on its right hand side i.e. beyond median. 12. There is no challenge to the wisdom between this policy. 13. Here the material on record does not show that the petrol pump of petitioner is on a carriageway which has divider at its center. In absence of this, the distance norm of 1000 meters is not attracted at all. 12. There is no challenge to the wisdom between this policy. 13. Here the material on record does not show that the petrol pump of petitioner is on a carriageway which has divider at its center. In absence of this, the distance norm of 1000 meters is not attracted at all. Respondents have specifically submitted that the petrol pump of petitioner and respondent no.2 is on same side of a carriageway which does not have any median at all. They invite attention to pleadings in paragraph no.16 of the Writ Petition to urge that the petitioner therefore has attempted to place on record relevance of distance norm of 300 meters. We need not observe anything more in this respect, as the competent Authority has already granted necessary access permission to respondent no.2 and State Government through its communication dated 18.01.2018 pointed out that distance to be more than 300 meters. 14. Relevance of these guidelines is looked into by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case reported at 2016 [15] SCC 480 (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vrs. Arti Devi Dangy). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has found that the guidelines or stipulations in the advertisement are mandatory and object behind the same is to have uniform application and treatment to all tenderers. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has therefore, set aside the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court taking a view to the contrary. 15. Here we find that norms stipulated vide IRC Guidelines, mentioned supra, forming part of the advertisement have not been breached or violated at all. No case is therefore, made out warranting intervention. Writ Petition is, thus dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs. 16. The amount of Rs. 1 lakh deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of orders of this Court dated 19.08.2016, is allowed to be withdrawn by him along with interest accrued thereon.