JUDGMENT : Tashi Rabstan, J. 1. M/s. Nun Kun Filling Station-petitioners herein, claim to have responded to a notice issued by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) for Retail Outlet Dealership at Location Kargil Town District Kargil-under ST Category (Women). Her application form is said to have been entertain and after participation in the process of selection, petitioner No. 2 was selected for Retail Outlet Dealership vide letter dated 28th August 2006 (Annexure A to both writ petitions). The petrol pump, according to petitioners, is being run since 2007 smoothly. It is asserted that in the month of June 2017, respondent No. 7 came on spot and started developing the land adjacent to the pump of petitioners and when petitioners enquired from the labourers, they were apprised that respondent No. 7 had been allotted retail outlet, dealership. Upon having the said ken, petitioners represented to respondents 4 & 5 for stopping establishment of pump on the proposed site. Petitioners also came to know about issuance of NOC dated 18th November 2012, by District Magistrate Kargil. This is stated to have forced petitioners to approach this Court with writ petition, bearing OWP No. 2008/2017, seeking quashment of NOC dated 18th November 2017 [Annexure to writ petition) issued by respondent No. 5. They seek writ of prohibition, prohibiting official respondents from allowing private respondent No. 7 to raise any consideration for establishment of retail outlet to the existing petrol pump of petitioners. Petitioners also seek a direction to respondents 4 & 7 from raising further construction upon the site adjacent to the petitioners on the basis of impugned NOC and directing them to follow the guidelines issued by respondents 1 & 3 and also followed by Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. Petitioners also seek a direction to respondents 4 & 7 from raising further construction upon the site adjacent to the petitioners on the basis of impugned NOC and directing them to follow the guidelines issued by respondents 1 & 3 and also followed by Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. Petitioners also pray for a direction to respondents 1 & 3 to seek explanation from respondents 4, 5 & 7 as to who and in what manner they have issued NOC as well as they are raising construction in violation of guidelines issued by respondents 1 & 3 and followed by authorities of respondent No. 4 as well and take administration action against respondent No. 4 for flouting guidelines which are mandatory in nature, with further direction to take formal decision upon the representations and pay to petitioner for the damage caused to them while proposing to install retail outlet adjacent to their existing fuel station and produce whole record pertaining to the process initiated by respondent No. 4 before allowing respondent No. 7 to raise construction more particularly permission, if any, granted by respondents 1 to 3 as well as respondent No. 6 before this Court. 2. Reply has been filed by respondent No. 4, in which he insists that petitioners have no locus standi to file present writ petition, in that the same has been filed for enforcement of non-statutory guidelines, viz. guidelines recommended by IRC etcetera, which is not maintainable. Petitioners have failed to show that such guidelines are framed under any Act of the Legislature or that they are statutory norms. If the norms are not statutory, petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly for writ of mandamus for its enforcement, is not maintainable. Petitioners have failed to establish any breach of statutory duty or obligation towards them on part of respondents. It is also insisted that petitioners have failed to establish any injury or damage of any kind that the Statute was designed to give protection. Petitioners are allottees and running retail outlet in the vicinity and determination of the question qua location being totally in the domain of respondent No. 4 and petitioners 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. Petitioners are allottees and running retail outlet in the vicinity and determination of the question qua location being totally in the domain of respondent No. 4 and petitioners 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. Respondent highlights that 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 a new unit is in violation of law; merely because some of 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 petitioners are retail outlet dealers of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation whereas impugned notification has been issued by M/s. Indian Oil Corporation. As rival traders, petitioners are not entitled to seek direction from this Court to forbear other traders from establishing their outlet. Respondent also asserts that any eligible applicant can offer plot of land along with their applications anywhere within advertised area or stretch and land after evaluation by LEC, if found suitable, LOI is issued and further action for establishment of RO is being taken. The site suitability has been done as per the MORTH Guidelines issued vide Ref No. RW/NH-33023/19/99-DO-111, dated 24th July 2013 and development of RO started only after getting NOC from District Magistrate and other departments including R & B. 3. Respondent No. 5 (Deputy Commissioner, Kargil) in his reply, has stated that prior to issuance of NOC in favour of respondent No. 7, objections from Senior Superintendent of Police Kargil, Chief Education Officer Kargil, I/C Fire and Emergency Services Kargil, Executive Engineer R & B Division No. II Kargil and Executive Engineer Electric Division Kargil, were sought. They have given NOC, with the result there will be nothing adverse to install a retail outlet (petrol pump) at Kako Shilikchey Kargil. They have given NOC, with the result there will be nothing adverse to install a retail outlet (petrol pump) at Kako Shilikchey Kargil. It is insisted that it was only after NOCs were given by aforesaid authorities, that respondent No. 5 issued NOC in favour of respondent No. 7, subject to fulfillment of guidelines laid down in letter of Fire and Emergency Services, J & K, Kashmir Range, Srinagar dated 10th November 2017. 4. Respondent No. 6 (Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, Faridabad) in his reply, has stated that NOC in question has been issued by competent authority in terms of law and rules governing the field and by virtue of a transparent process. He also states that NOC dated 18th November 2017, has been issued by District Magistrate under Rule 144 of Petroleum Rules, 2002, and on its receipt of required documents, the construction approval was granted by Organisation (PESO) vide approval No. A/P/NC/JK/14/908(P413388), dated 11 December 2017 under Rule 131 of Petroleum Rules, 2002. 5. Respondent No. 3, in his reply, has stated that he has no role in issuance of NOC by respondent No. 5. 6. Respondent No. 2 has also filed the reply, wherein he states that NOC in question has not been issued by him. 7. Writ petition (OWP No. 2008/2017) came to be filed on 13th December 2017 and was listed before this Court on 14th December 2017. After hearing both sides, this Court directed respondent No. 4 (Senior Divisional Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, Jammu) to issue a Certificate to respondent No. 7 to the effect whether the site for the proposed filling station (retail outlet) of respondent No. 7, adjoins the filling station (retail outlet) of the petitioners or not and that said site had been duly approved by Indian Oil Corporation. The said certificate was directed to be issued on the basis of spot inspection to be made by respondent No. 4 or an officer duly authorised by Indian Oil Corporation. Respondent No. 7 was also directed to produce said certificate in this court and till such certificate was produced in this court, the proposed filling station (retail outlet) was directed not to commence and made operational. Respondent No. 4 was also directed to ensure that Order dated 14th December 2017 was strictly complied with. 8. Respondent No. 7 was also directed to produce said certificate in this court and till such certificate was produced in this court, the proposed filling station (retail outlet) was directed not to commence and made operational. Respondent No. 4 was also directed to ensure that Order dated 14th December 2017 was strictly complied with. 8. According to petitioners, while above writ petition, being OWP No. 2008/2017, was pending, they approached respondent No. 1 with an application dated 4th December 2017 regarding illegal construction/installation of petrol pump by IOC at National Highway Srinagar, Leh (NH-1). Respondent No. 1 forwarded petitioners' application to respondent No. 3 Chairman, NHAI, for necessary action. It is stated that petitioners had also approached respondent No. 2, who addressed a communication dated 4th December 2017 to petitioners, apprising them that no NOC had been issued in favour of respondent No. 7 and as consequence whereof work had been stopped and respondent No. 7 instructed not to start construction without prior approval/NOC. According to petitioners, respondent No. 4 has issued a certificate dated 9th February 2018 as per direction of this Court. Petitioners exhort that they, aggrieved of certificate dated 9th February 2018, have been compelled to again come up with another writ petition, diarised and numbered as OWP No. 247/2018, beseeching following relief: (a) Writ of certiorari, quashing impugned certificate dated 9th February 2018 with respect to granting approval by respondent No. 4 in favour of respondent No. 7 or installing retail outlet. (b) Writ of prohibition, prohibiting respondents, more particularly respondent No. 4 & 7, from proceeding ahead with respect to raising of construction on the basis of impugned certificate unless and until NOC is issued by respondent No. 1 & 2 strictly in accordance with guidelines followed and implemented by said respondents. 9. Reply has been filed by respondent No. 6, averring therein that NOC in question has been issued by District Magistrate under Rule 144 of Petroleum Rules, 2002. He states that upon receipt of required documents, construction approval was granted by competent authority vide No. A/P/NC/JK/14/908 (P413388), dated 11th December 2017 under Rule 131 of Petroleum Rules, 2001. 10. Respondent No. 4, in his Reply, has insisted that petitioners have no locus standi to file present writ petition, in that the same has been filed for enforcement of non-statutory guidelines, viz. guidelines recommended by IRC etcetera, which is not maintainable. 10. Respondent No. 4, in his Reply, has insisted that petitioners have no locus standi to file present writ petition, in that the same has been filed for enforcement of non-statutory guidelines, viz. guidelines recommended by IRC etcetera, which is not maintainable. Petitioners have failed to show that such guidelines are framed under any Act of the Legislature or that they are statutory norms. If the norms are not statutory, petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly for writ of mandamus for its enforcement, is not maintainable. Petitioners have failed to establish any breach of statutory duty or obligation towards them on part of respondents. It is also insisted that petitioners have failed to establish any injury or damage of any kind that the Statute was designed to give protection. Petitioners are allottees and running retail outlet in the vicinity and determination of the question qua location being totally in the domain of respondent No. 4 and petitioners 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. Respondent highlights that 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 a new unit is in violation of law; merely because some of 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 petitioners are retail outlet dealers of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation whereas impugned notification has been issued by M/s. Indian Oil Corporation. As rival traders, petitioners are not entitled to seek direction from this Court to forbear other traders from establishing their outlet. Respondent also asserts that any eligible applicant can offer plot of land along with their applications anywhere within advertised area or stretch and land after evaluation by LEC, if found suitable, LOI is issued and further action for establishment of RO is being taken. Respondent also asserts that any eligible applicant can offer plot of land along with their applications anywhere within advertised area or stretch and land after evaluation by LEC, if found suitable, LOI is issued and further action for establishment of RO is being taken. The site suitability has been done as per the MORTH Guidelines issued vide Ref No. RW/NH-33023/19/99-DO-111, dated 24th July 2013 and development of RO started only after getting NOC from District Magistrate and other departments including R & B. According to respondent as per Para 4.6.3, 4.6.4 and 6.1.1 of MORTH Guidelines, two or more retail outlets can be established in close proximity in Hilly/mountainous terrain without having a common service road. 11. Respondent No. 7 has filed his reply. He has insisted that establishment of filling station does not infringe any of rights much less fundamental rights of petitioners. According to him guidelines issued by IRC are non statutory in character and are not at all enforceable in a court of law inasmuch as guidelines relied upon by petitioner do not prohibit establishment of outlets in close proximity of each other but provide for a procedure that is required to be followed in case two outlets are established in close proximity with each other. Petitioner vehemently maintains that guidelines specifically provide that any objection by existing fuel station owner in close proximity against granting of permission for new fuel station, shall be overruled and that contention of petitioner that fuel station cannot be established within 300 meters of existing outlet is totally misplaced. Respondent also avers that writ petition against rival businessman is not maintainable in that it does not affect any of vested statutory right of existing businessman even if it is assumed that it adversely affects his business interests. Writ petition is said to suffer from non-joinder of necessary parties, for Indian Oil Corporation, whose decision to establish outlet has been challenged, is a separate entity capable to sue and liable to be sued in its own name and that once corporation has not been arrayed as party, writ petition is not maintainable. Impugned certificate, according to respondent, has been issued by respondent No. 4 after proper application of mind to the norms occupying the field and does not suffer from any illegality. 12. I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter. 13. Impugned certificate, according to respondent, has been issued by respondent No. 4 after proper application of mind to the norms occupying the field and does not suffer from any illegality. 12. I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter. 13. Petitioners are existing retail outlet dealers of HPCL, at Shilikchey Kargil. They are aggrieved of running of another retail outlet dealership by respondent No. 7, that according to petitioners is in their close proximity. This Court in OWP No. 2008/2017, passed a threshold interim order on 14th December 2017, which is advantageous to be reproduced infra: "Meanwhile, as ad interim, respondent No. 4 i.e. Senior Divisional Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, Jammu shall issue a certificate to the respondent No. 7 to the effect whether the site for the proposed filling station (retail outlet) of respondent No. 7, adjoins the filling station (retail outlet) of the petitioners or not and that the said site has been duly approved by the Indian Oil Corporation. This certificate shall be issued on the basis of spot inspection to be made by the respondent No. 4 or an officer duly authorised by the Indian Oil Corporation/The respondent No. 7 was shall produce the said certificate in this court. Till such a certificate is produced in this court, the proposed filling station (retail outlet) shall not be commenced and made operational. The respondent. No. 4 shall ensure that this direction is strictly compiled with." 14. The order dated 14th December 2017, passed by a Bench of this Court, is lucid and complete in all respects. What this Court by order dated 14th December 2017 directed, is important to be seen and discoursed. This Court directed respondent No. 4 to issue a certificate in favour respondent No. 7, certifying therein whether the site for proposed filling station (retail outlet) of respondent No. 7, adjoins the filling station of petitioners or not and whether proposed site has been approved by Indian Oil Corporation. This Court also directed to issue Certificate on the basis of spot inspection. Certificate bearing Ref. JDO/Kargil Silikche dated 9th February 2018, has been issued by Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Jammu Division, which is impugned here. The certificate, on its glimpse, divulges that spot inspection was done by officer, Mohd. Salah-ud-deen; AM (RS)/Srinagar II SA, duly authorised by Indian Oil Corporation Limited. Certificate bearing Ref. JDO/Kargil Silikche dated 9th February 2018, has been issued by Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Jammu Division, which is impugned here. The certificate, on its glimpse, divulges that spot inspection was done by officer, Mohd. Salah-ud-deen; AM (RS)/Srinagar II SA, duly authorised by Indian Oil Corporation Limited. It also reveals that location in question is within five kilometres from Kargil Bypass Bridge Shilikche near Kaku towards Drass, District Kargil and that the location was advertised by Indian Oil Corporation for regular retail outlet dealership on 30th June 2017 under category SC in. D-Class of Market (NH-1D) along with other locations in J & K. It is also discernible from the certificate that that proposed filling station of Indian Oil Corporation Limited adjoins the filling station (retail outlet) of petitioners. The site is said to be duly approved by Indian Oil Corporation Limited. It also comes to fore that the approval of the site has been given by the Land Evaluation Committee of Indian Oil Corporation. It has been certified that outlet is being set up after proper verification and in accordance with rules/orders/findings of the various High Courts. The certificate also refers to MORTH Guidelines. 15. It is important to see what are MORTH Guidelines as same will square off present controversy. Ministry of Road Transport & Highway, Government of India (in short "MORTH"), vide its communication No. RW/NH-33023/19/99-DO-III, dated 24th July 2013, has transmitted to all States, guidelines/norms for access permission to Fuel Stations, Private Properties, Rest Area Complexes and such other facilities along National Highways. Guidelines/norms for location, layout and access to fuel stations along National Highways, has been catalogued in paras. Para 4.0 portrays General Conditions of Siting. Para 4.1 provides that fuel stations shall generally be a part of the rest area complex along the highways. Rest area should have various amenities for users. Para 4.3 says that fuel stations would be located where highway alignment and profile are favourable Para 4.6.3. Provides that if two or more fuel stations are to be sited in close proximity for some reasons these would be grouped together to have a common access through a service road of 7.0 m width and connected to the highway through acceleration, deceleration lanes. Provides that if two or more fuel stations are to be sited in close proximity for some reasons these would be grouped together to have a common access through a service road of 7.0 m width and connected to the highway through acceleration, deceleration lanes. It also envisages that any objection from existing fuel station owner against granting of access permission from NH for proposed new fuel station are to be overruled and access to all fuel stations in case of clustering, shall invariably be from the service road only. Wherever longer service road exists which may itself act as deceleration/acceleration lane, no separate deceleration/acceleration lane is required. Para 4.6.4 says that in case of hilly/mountainous terrain, common service roads such locations may not be possible as per the site conditions and therefore common access through service roads would not be a precondition. Para 6.1.1 stipulates that deceleration and acceleration lanes may be dispensed with for fuel stations located along urban roads and roads in hilly and mountainous terrain. Establishment of retail outlet (petrol pump) in close proximity of existing retail outlet (petrol pump) is permitted if that abides by what is stipulated by MORTH. In the present case, petitioner runs outlet of HPCL whereas respondent No. 7 of IOCL. Both have to follow standards prescribed by MORTH. If we go by the norms/guidelines as discussed above, respondent No. 7 cannot be restrained to run retail outlet (petrol pump) as he has fulfilled norms/guidelines laid down by MORTH. 16. It is most apposite to highlight here that petitioners are running retail outlet of HPCL. They are in 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 retail outlet dealership of HPCL. There is no infringement of any of their statutory rights. Their only effort is to stop new operators from coming in the field as competitors. I do not see any justification in petitioners stand to prevent respondent No. 7 in 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. 17. Their only effort is to stop new operators from coming in the field as competitors. I do not see any justification in petitioners stand to prevent respondent No. 7 in 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. 17. Petitioners are already in the business and they want to keep fresh entrants out of it and therefore eliminate the healthy competition, which is necessary to bring efficiency in the trade. Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India guarantees to all citizens 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). A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Saghir Ahmad v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 728 , 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). Having said so, the judgment rendered in Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others v. Arti Devi Dangi and another (2016) 15 SCC 480 and judgment dated 15th January 2018, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Writ petition No. 4753 of 2016 titled in Ujwala v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner will not render any aid and assistance to bolster the case of petitioner because both judgments are drastically distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case and cannot be treated as Euclid's theorem. In both judgments IRC guidelines had been forming part of advertisement, whereas in the present case, both, petitioners and respondent No. 7, are possessing retail outlets of two different companies and followance or compliance of IRC guidelines, therefore, does not arise at all. Two are different and distant. 18. Given the reasons discussed above, writ petitions are devoid of any merit and are, accordingly, dismissed. Interim directions shall stand vacated.