Judgment 1. Petitioners claim that they are aggrieved of the installation of a petrol pump in their vicinity and thus have joined hands to file the present petition challenging the No Objection Certificate (NOC) dated 10.06.2019 issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Samba, respondent No. 2 herein, primarily, on the ground that the NOC as also the proposed installation of the petrol pump was in violation of the provisions of the Petroleum Act, 1934 (for short, the Act of 1934) and the rules framed thereunder and the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways, Government of India. NOC dated 10.06.2019 (impugned in the present petition): 2. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Samba issued an NOC dated 10.06.2019 addressed to the Territory Manager Retail, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL), Jammu, whereby a revised no objections certificate was issued in favour of M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Jammu for installation of a retail outlet at Birpur on the Jammu-Pathankot Road on land measuring 15½ marlas under Khasra Nos. 1286 (5½ marlas) and 1288 (10 marlas). The NOC was issued subject to the conditions imposed by the Joint Director Fire and Emergency Services J&K Jammu, Pollution Control Board J&K Jammu, Project Director NHIA, Senior Superintendent of Police, Samba, SDM Vijaypur and Tehsildar Bari Brahmana in their letter and spirit. The said NOC also reflected that the earlier NOC for 10 marlas issued vide order No. DCS/Misc/2019/505-11 dated 04.06.2019 was being withdrawn and a revised NOC in regard to 15½ marlas issued based upon receipt of fresh reports. Grounds of challenge: 3. The grounds on which the No objection Certificate issued by respondent No. 3 is challenged are as under: i. “That NOC had been issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner which was contrary to rule 2(x) of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 (for short, the Rules of 2002) which requires the same to be issued by a District Magistrate. ii. The grounds on which the No objection Certificate issued by respondent No. 3 is challenged are as under: i. “That NOC had been issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner which was contrary to rule 2(x) of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 (for short, the Rules of 2002) which requires the same to be issued by a District Magistrate. ii. That no enquiry as contemplated under Rule 144(5) of the Rules of 2002 was conducted by respondent No. 3 before issuing the NOC and it was mandatory on the part of the official respondents No. 2 and 3 to invite objections, if any, from the residents of ward No. 12 to find out whether or not a petrol pump should be installed in their locality as was a requirement in terms of rule 144(1) of the Rules of 2002 and that no NOC could have been issued by respondent No. 3 without a building permission from the Municipal Committee Bari Brahmana and, therefore, the construction activity ought to be restrained. iii. That rule 144(2) of the Rules of 2002 has been violated, inasmuch as, every NOC issued by the District authority under Sub rule 1 of rule 144 of the Petroleum rules had to be accompanied by a copy of the proposed site plan duly endorsed by the district authority under its official seal. iv. That plot size of the private respondent No.5 was 20X20 metres as against the plot size requirement of 35X45 metres, as per the clause 5 of the Guidelines and that no NOC was obtained by the respondent No.3 from the national highway authority to find out whether there was already a petrol pump functioning in the adjoining area at a distance of less than 1000 metres. 4. A lot of emphasis was laid by the learned counsel for the petitioners on how the NOC violated the guidelines dated 24.07.2013 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways and, in particular, clauses 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.5.1, 4.5.3 and 4.6, 4.6.4, 4.7. Stand of the Municipal Committee, Bari Brahmana, Samba, respondent No. 4 herein: 5. 4. A lot of emphasis was laid by the learned counsel for the petitioners on how the NOC violated the guidelines dated 24.07.2013 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways and, in particular, clauses 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.5.1, 4.5.3 and 4.6, 4.6.4, 4.7. Stand of the Municipal Committee, Bari Brahmana, Samba, respondent No. 4 herein: 5. Municipal Committee, Bari Brahmana, District, Samba, respondent No. 4 herein, in its response has taken a stand that since the petroleum retail outlet is being installed on the highway, as such, the lay out plan for the same is required to be approved by the authorities of the National Highway Authority of India as also the Petroleum and Explosive Safety Organization, Government of India. It is stated that a complaint was filed by some persons that the construction being raised on the plot in question was against the sanctioned plan but subsequently it was found that site plan of the four storeyed commercial hall which was earlier approved pertained to a different piece of land and not the one which is the subject matter of controversy. It is further stated that there was no requirement for the Deputy Commissioner, Samba to first obtained an NOC from the Municipal Committee, Bari Brahmana, inasmuch as, the lay out plans for the Fuel Station on the National Highway were required to be approved by the National Highway Authority of India and other authorities mentioned above. Stand of the Deputy Commissioner, Samba, respondent No. 3 herein: 6. The Deputy Commissioner, Samba in its response has taken a stand that there was no violation of any of the rules under the Act of 1934 in issuing the NOC in question. It was stated that the applicant had applied for issuance of an NOC for putting up an MS/HSD (Motor Spirit/High Speed Diesel) retail outlet near KM Store No. 93 Bari Brahmana (WML), NH-44 LHS, on Jammu-Pathankot road at village Birpur, Tehsil Bari Brahmana, District Samba, J&K. 6(a). It is stated that the land proposed for establishing the Fuel Station was measuring 15½ marlas, out of which 5½ marlas was contained in Khasra No. 1286 and rest of the 10 marlas of land was situate in Khasra No. 1288 in continuity. 6(b). It is stated that the land proposed for establishing the Fuel Station was measuring 15½ marlas, out of which 5½ marlas was contained in Khasra No. 1286 and rest of the 10 marlas of land was situate in Khasra No. 1288 in continuity. 6(b). It is stated that after having received the request for NOC along with the proposed lay out plan, the office of the Deputy Commissioner had sought a report from the office of the Director Fire and Emergency Services, Regional Director, J&K State Pollution Control Board, Senior Superintendent of Police, Samba, Tehsildar, Bari Brahmana and Petroleum & Explosives Safety Organization, Government of India as also the National Highway Authority of India. It is stated that after having considered the reports given by the aforesaid authorities including the provisional NOC by the National Highway Authority of India as also the initial approval from the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization, Government of India, NOC was granted after due application of mind. 6(c). It is also stated that the applicant in whose favour the NOC has been granted, is the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and that the application was accompanied with ten copies of the proposed lay out plan. It was stated that since nothing adverse was found in the application and the reports, the NOC was accordingly issued. 6(d). The Deputy Commissioner further in the response has stated that even the National Highway Authority of India had issued a provisional NOC for installation of the fuel station at the site in question and therefore, the allegations regarding violation of the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highway are without any legal basis whatsoever. Response of respondent No.5: 7. Private respondent No. 5 in its response has taken a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present petition on the ground of locus standi. It is stated that the petitioners cannot at all be said to be persons aggrieved in regard to the NOC in question and that the petition was filed at the behest of competitors who are running the petrol pumps in the said area. 7(a). It is stated that the petitioners cannot at all be said to be persons aggrieved in regard to the NOC in question and that the petition was filed at the behest of competitors who are running the petrol pumps in the said area. 7(a). It was also contended that the petitioners have concealed a material fact from the court, inasmuch as, a civil suit had been filed by the petitioners in the Court of learned District Judge Samba wherein the following reliefs were claimed: “Civil Original Suit under Order 1 rule 8 read with Section 151 CPC in representative capacity for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from installing retail outlet of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. under the name and style of M/s HSD Retail outlet near Km Store No. 93, Bari Brahmana (WML), NH-44 LHS on Jammu- Pathankot road at village Birpur Tehsil Bari Brahmana & District Samba, over the land falling under Khasra Nos. 1286 (15½ Marlas), 1287 (5½ marlas) and 1288 (10 marlas) which falls within the limits of Municipal Committee Samba.” 7(b). It is stated that since the answering respondent No. 5 was on caveat in the aforesaid suit, the interim relief prayed for by the plaintiffs was resisted and the plaintiffs ultimately failed to get any relief. In that view of the matter, the suit was withdrawn. A copy of the suit also has been annexed with the response filed by the private respondent No. 5. 8. Form the record, it appears that a civil suit was, in fact, filed in the name of Raj Kumar and nine others against one Ganesh Pal S/o Bodh Raj who is respondent No. 5 in the instant petition. However, vide order dated 03.07.2019, the Court below permitted the plaintiffs to withdraw the suit. 9. What is important to note here is a fact that no permission was granted to the plaintiffs to file a fresh suit based upon the same cause of action. It is also important to note that the suit was filed in the representative capacity under Order 01 Rule 8 of the CPC on behalf of residents of Ward No. 12, Bari Brahmana. On the issue of concealment of material fact, it can be seen that in paragraph 18 of the petition, what the petitioners have stated is as under: “18. On the issue of concealment of material fact, it can be seen that in paragraph 18 of the petition, what the petitioners have stated is as under: “18. That the petitioners have not filed any other petition/PIL before this or any other competent Court on the same subject matter.” The petitioners, therefore, have very cleverly concealed from this Court the fact that they had approached the Court below by filing a Suit on 1st of July, and withdrew the same on 3rd of July, 2019. 10. From the orders on record, it appears that the Court below had also issued notice on 01.07.2019 to the caveators and matter was fixed on 03.07.2019 when the said suit was withdrawn. According to private respondent No. 5, the said suit was withdrawn only after the plaintiffs had failed to obtain any interim relief in their favour. 11. In my opinion, the petitioners-plaintiffs ought to have clearly reflected in paragraph 18, the fact that an earlier suit was in fact filed by them in a representative capacity in terms of Order 01 Rule 8 of CPC., which the petitioners deliberately concealed from this Court and, therefore, succeeded in obtaining the order dated 10.07.2019 whereby the operation of the impugned NOC dated 10.06.2019 issued in favour of the respondent No. 2 was stayed. The concealment of this material fact regarding filing of an earlier suit, in my opinion, appears to be deliberate. Needless to say that while any person may avail the extraordinary remedy for purposes of enforcement of a legal statutory or fundamental right on a plea that an alternate remedy is not equally efficacious, yet the situation is different where a party having availed the alternate remedy and having failed to obtain a relief abandons or withdraws from that remedy with a view to take a chance in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 12. Apart from the above, I propose to deal with each of the issues that have been raised in the present petition. Issue No. i “That NOC had been issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner which was contrary to rule 2(x), which requires the same to be issued by a District Magistrate.” 13. 12. Apart from the above, I propose to deal with each of the issues that have been raised in the present petition. Issue No. i “That NOC had been issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner which was contrary to rule 2(x), which requires the same to be issued by a District Magistrate.” 13. The first ground of challenge is that the NOC ought to have been issued by the District Magistrate or the Additional District Magistrate in accordance with rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 (for short the Rules of 2002) whereas the same has been issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Samba. 14. On a perusal of rule 144 of the Rules of 2002, it can be seen that an applicant for a new license has to apply to the District Authority with two copies of the site plan showing location of the premises proposed to be licensed for a certificate to the effect that there is no objection, to the applicant receiving a license for the site proposed and further that the district authority if he sees no objection, grant such certificate of the applicant who shall forward it to the licensing authority with his application Form-IX. 14(a). Every certificate issued by the District Authority under sub rule 1 has to be accompanied by a copy of the plan of the proposed site duly endorsed by him under his official seal. 14(b). According to Section 2(x) of the Rules of 2002, a District Authority is defined as under: (x) “District Authority” means— “(a) in towns having a commissioner of Police, the Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner of Police. (b) in any other place, the District Magistrate.” 14(c). Clause (xi) of the Rules of 2002 defines a district Magistrate as under: (xi) “District Magistrate” means and includes an Additional District Magistrate and in the States of Punjab and Haryana and in the Karaikal, Mahe and Yenam areas of the Union Territory of Pondicherry, also includes a sub Divisional Magistrate; 15. This plea, on the face of it, is without any basis for the simple reason that a District Magistrate also includes an Additional District Magistrate. Not only this, there is no distinction between an Additional District Magistrate and an Additional Deputy Commissioner. In fact, a Deputy Commissioner is the executive head of a district and has multifarious roles. This plea, on the face of it, is without any basis for the simple reason that a District Magistrate also includes an Additional District Magistrate. Not only this, there is no distinction between an Additional District Magistrate and an Additional Deputy Commissioner. In fact, a Deputy Commissioner is the executive head of a district and has multifarious roles. With a view to discharge his responsibility for collection of land revenue, he is called a District Collector. While acting as a District Collector, he may also exercise power of Registrar of a district to control and supervise work of registration of deeds. In addition to this, he may also control and supervise the registration of marriages under the Special Marriages Act, 1954. In his role as a District Magistrate, he is the head of the criminal administration of the District and is responsible for the maintenance of law and order in his district and can order restriction under Section 144 of Cr. P.C. Not only this, in his role as a Deputy Commissioner, he may exercise appellate powers for example, under the Land Revenue Act. There is, thus, no distinction in so far as the office is concerned, but only nomenclature changes depending upon the role that the authority is required to discharge. 16. In the present case, since, according to definition 2(xi), the District Magistrate also means and includes an Additional District Magistrate, in my opinion, there was no illegality in the Additional Deputy Commissioner issuing the NOC in question. The challenge on that ground is, therefore, untenable and is accordingly rejected. Issue No. ii “That no enquiry as contemplated under Rule 144(5) of the Rules of 2002 was conducted by respondent No. 3 before issuing the NOC and it was mandatory on the part of the official respondents No. 2 and 3 to invite objections, if any from the residents of ward No. 12 to find out whether or not a petrol pump should be installed in their locality as was a requirement in terms of rule 144(1) of the Rules of 2002 and that no NOC could have been issued by respondent No. 3 without a building permission from the Municipal Committee Bari Brahmana and therefore the construction activity ought to be restrained.” 17. The second ground urged was that no enquiry under 144(5) was conducted by the District authority before issuing the NOC. The second ground urged was that no enquiry under 144(5) was conducted by the District authority before issuing the NOC. In this regard, it was alleged that in the enquiry, the residents of Ward No. 12, Bari Brahmana ought to have been heard in the matter, who have expressed their views on why the second petrol pump was not at all required in the said vicinity. Rule 144(5) of the Rules of 2002, envisages thus: 144(5). The District Authority shall complete his inquiry for issuing No Objection Certificate (NOC) under sub-rule (1) and shall complete the action for issue or refusal of the NOC as the case may be, as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the date of receipt of application by him.” 18. On a perusal of the Scheme of the rule, it can be seen that the said rule does not at all envisage that the District Authority has to give an opportunity of being heard to the residents of the locality in which the petrol pump is to be set up. 19. On a perusal of the NOC in question, it can be seen that the district authority had considered the conditions, which had been imposed by the Joint Director Fire and Emergency Services, Pollution Control Board, the Project Director National Highway Authority of India, Senior Superintendent of Police, Samba, SDM Vijaypur as also the Tehsildar, Bari Brahmana and while issuing the NOC had observed that the same would be observed in their letter and spirit. Not only this, the NOC was made conditional to the extent that it could be withdrawn in case of any subsequent adverse development or in the larger public interest. This would cover a condition where there was any violation of any of the conditions prescribed by the various agencies which find a mention in the NOC. Needless to say that the requirements of rule 144(5) cannot be said to have been violated, in any manner, nor does the said rule imply that an enquiry to be completed must necessarily be preceded by an opportunity of being heard, being granted to the residents of the locality. It is not the case of the petitioners that by permitting a petrol pump to function from the plot in question, any of the Zonal Regulations would get violated. 20. It is not the case of the petitioners that by permitting a petrol pump to function from the plot in question, any of the Zonal Regulations would get violated. 20. This argument, even otherwise, would not be available to the petitioners, inasmuch as, the petrol pump is to be located on the national highway. The only interest, which the petitioners may have, being residents of the said locality, could be that even the erection of the building of the petrol pump must conform to the Municipal bye-laws of that area. Even that, objection appears to be now only academic, inasmuch as, the private respondent No. 5 has, during the course of arguments, produced the building permission issued in his favour, which has been issued by the Executive Officer, Municipal Committee, Bari Brahmana dated 16.10.2019. 21. Although the stand taken by the Deputy Commissioner was that there was no need for such a building permission from the Municipal authorities, inasmuch as, it is only the National Highway authority which was competent to approve the building plans of the proposed construction, yet in view of the subsequent developments and the permission granted by the Municipal Committee, Bari Brahmana, it can now safely be said that the deficiency, if any, stands removed and the argument rendered academic. In any case, if at all there is any breach of Municipal bye-laws and regulations in regard to the construction in question, the Municipal Committee, Bari Brahmana would be at liberty to take action in that regard. Issue No. iii. “That the rule 144(2) of the Rules of 2002 has been violated, inasmuch as, every NOC issued by the District authority under Sub rule 1 of rule 144 of the Petroleum rules had to be accompanied by a copy of the proposed site plan duly endorsed by the district authority under its official seal.” 22. The third ground of challenge is that the Rule 144 (2) of the Rules of 2002 have been violated, inasmuch as, every NOC issued by the District authority under Sub rule 1 of rule 144 of the Petroleum rules had to be accompanied by a copy of the proposed site plan duly endorsed by the district authority under its official seal. 23. 23. In this regard, on a perusal of the record, it can be seen that the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., which is the applicant in the present case, had vide communication dated 25.02.2019 while asking for the issuance of the NOC, had also specifically stated that the said request was being accompanied with ten copies of the proposed lay out plan. Even the reply filed by the Deputy Commissioner in paragraph 3, does state that the application filed by respondents No. 2, BPCL was accompanied with ten copies of the lay out proposed plan for consideration by the said authority. 24. The argument that the application was not accompanied with the prescribed ten copies is, therefore, without any legal basis and is, accordingly, rejected. 25. In regard to the other limb of the argument that the NOC was not accompanied by the copy of the site plan duly endorsed by the District Authority. A specific response has been filed by respondent No. 3 wherein at paragraph 15(b), what has been stated is as under: 15(b) ...........the NOC is accompanied by the lay out plan of the proposed site with respect to the installation of the fuel station and the said lay out plan has also been endorsed and stamped by the answering respondent. Unfortunately the facts have been suppressed from this Hon’ble Court. The contention of the petitioners that NOC was sought by the answering respondent without providing them with the site plan is totally incorrect. As a matter of fact, 10 copies of the site plan had been received from the respondent no. 2 and whenever NOC/report was sought from any authority, the copy of the site plan was also sent. No statutory requirement has been given go-bye as alleged by the petitioners and the writ petition being without any merit is liable to be dismissed.” 26. Needless to say that as per the scheme of the Petroleum Act and rules framed thereunder, it is only NOC which is duly issued by the Deputy Commissioner, which could be honoured for purposes of considering the petrol Station for grant of the appropriate license by the Petroleum and Explosive Safety Organization. Needless to say that as per the scheme of the Petroleum Act and rules framed thereunder, it is only NOC which is duly issued by the Deputy Commissioner, which could be honoured for purposes of considering the petrol Station for grant of the appropriate license by the Petroleum and Explosive Safety Organization. In fact, according to rule 144(3), the Chief Controller or Controller, as the case may be has a power to refer an application not accompanied by a certificate granted under Sub Rule 1 of Rule 144 to the District Authority for his observations. It is, therefore, clear that even if there was any shortcoming in the NOC, although there appears to be none, yet it would be open to the concerned authority, that is, the chief Controller or the controller to act in accordance with the relevant petroleum act and the rules framed thereunder. Issue No. iv. “That plot size of the private respondent No.5 was 20X20 metres as against the plot size requirement of 35X45 metres, as per the clause 5 of the guidelines and that no NOC was obtained by the respondent No.3 from the national highway authority to find out whether there was already a petrol pump functioning in the adjoining area at a distance of less than 1000 metres.” 27. That one of the grounds urged was that the plot size of the private respondent was 20X20 meters as against the required size of 35X45 as per clause 5 of the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. However, on a perusal of the guidelines, it can be seen that the minimum size of the plot for Fuel Stations along national highways in urban stretches, in meters, only requires a frontage of 20 metres and a depth of 20 meters. The site in question, admittedly, falls on the national highway at Birpur, Jammu-Pathankot road, is an urban area, as per certificate dated 15.07.2019 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Municipal Committee, Bari Brahmana which forms annexure 5 of the reply of the said private respondent. The challenge on that ground is, therefore, untenable and is, accordingly, rejected. 28. The other ground of challenge was that the NOC ought not to have been issued, inasmuch as, the same violated the provisions of the guidelines prescribed by the Ministry of Road, Transport and Highway. The challenge on that ground is, therefore, untenable and is, accordingly, rejected. 28. The other ground of challenge was that the NOC ought not to have been issued, inasmuch as, the same violated the provisions of the guidelines prescribed by the Ministry of Road, Transport and Highway. It was urged that there was already a petrol pump located at less than 1000 metres and, therefore, in terms of clauses 4.5.1, 4.5.2, 4.5.3, 4.6.4, the NOC ought not to have been issued. 29. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the guidelines, of which, violation is being alleged, have any statutory force or flavour. Learned counsel for the petitioners failed to give any explanation on that front as to how the said guidelines could be enforced through the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 30. Incidentally, in Saroj Bhatia versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors., 2014 (2) MPLJ 539 decided on 18.03.2014, a Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore, followed the judgment passed in Mahtab Ahmad v. Union of India and Ors. in W.P. No. 43483 of 2010 rendered by the Allahabad High Court and in paragraph 12 held as under: “12. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgment delivered by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Mahtab Ahmad (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the guidelines framed by the India Road Congress are not at all statutory guidelines and which can be enforced by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, the impugned order based upon the guidelines framed by the India Road Congress is accordingly quashed. In the present case, no other reason has been assigned by the respondent No. 3 for denying the NOC to the petitioner and therefore, as this Court has quashed the impugned order, the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 shall be free to establish a retail outlet as they have already obtained NOCs from various other authorities in accordance with law.” 31. I cannot persuade myself to take a view different from the one already taken in the aforementioned cases and accordingly, hold that the guidelines are not enforceable having no statutory force or flavour. On Locus Standi: 32. I cannot persuade myself to take a view different from the one already taken in the aforementioned cases and accordingly, hold that the guidelines are not enforceable having no statutory force or flavour. On Locus Standi: 32. Notwithstanding anything discussed hereinabove, one of the important issues that arise for consideration before this Court is with regard to the locus standi of the petitioners to challenge the NOC issued in favour of the respondent No. 2. The issue incidentally also came up for consideration in OWP No. 109 of 2018 decided on 24.09.2018 by this Court. What was stated in paragraphs 19, 20, 21 and 22 are reproduced herein under: “19. Somewhat similar circumstances were presented before the Apex Court in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar AIR 1976 SC 578 where the Apex Court considered whether a rival cinema owner could invoke the certiorari jurisdiction to quash a ‘no-objection certificate’ granted under Rule 6 of the Bombay Cinema Rules by the District Magistrate in favour of a rival on the ground that it suffered from a defect of jurisdiction. 20. What was stated by the Court in Para 33 is reproduced as thus: “This Court has laid down in a number of decisions that in order to have the locus standi to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, an applicant should ordinarily be one who has a personal or individual right in the subject matter of the application, though in the case of some of the writs like habeas corpus or quo warranto this rule is relaxed or modified. In other words, as a general rule, infringement of some legal right or prejudice to some legal interest inhering in the petitioner is necessary to give him a locus standi in the matter [see The State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal 1952 SCR 28 ; Calcutta, Gas Co. v. The State of West Bengal, 1962 Supp 1 SCR 1; Ram Umeshwari Suthoo v. Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa, (1967) 1 SCA 413; Gadda Venkateshwara Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 828 ; State of Orissa v. Rajasaheb Chandanmall, AIR 1972 SC 2112 ; Dr. Satvanarayana Sinha v. M/s S. Lal & Co., AIR 1973 SC 2720 ]. 21. In para 38, the Court laid down the tests to distinguish persons aggrieved from busybodies or strangers and held thus: “38. Satvanarayana Sinha v. M/s S. Lal & Co., AIR 1973 SC 2720 ]. 21. In para 38, the Court laid down the tests to distinguish persons aggrieved from busybodies or strangers and held thus: “38. Whether the applicant is a person whose legal right has been infringed? Has he suffered a legal wrong or injury, in the sense, that his interest, recognized by law, has been prejudicially and directly affected by the act or omission of the authority, complained of? Is he a person who has suffered a legal grievance, a person “against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something, or wrongfully affected his title to something? Has he a special and substantial grievance of his own beyond some grievance or inconvenience suffered by him in common with the rest of the public? Was he entitled to object and be heard by the authority before it took the impugned action? If so, was he prejudicially affected in the exercise of that right by the act of usurpation of jurisdiction on the part of the authority? Is the statute, in the context of which the scope of the words “person aggrieved” is being considered a social welfare measure designed to lay down ethical or professional standards of conduct for the community? Or is it a statute dealing with private rights of particular individuals? 22. Testing the facts of the present case on the touchstone of the tests laid down by the Apex Court hereinabove, it can clearly be seen that the petitioners miserably failed to point out any violation or injury, which could prejudicially and directly affect the interest of the petitioners. The petitioners have also miserably failed to project that by the issuance of the certificates in question, the petitioners’ rights or title in regard to any property has been affected. As stated hereinabove, the petitioners also failed to establish that they had any right to object to the issuance of the ‘No objection Certificate’ or be heard before the same were so issued. Clearly, the petitioners cannot be said to be persons aggrieved.” 33. The facts of the said case are no different from the present one. As stated hereinabove, the petitioners also failed to establish that they had any right to object to the issuance of the ‘No objection Certificate’ or be heard before the same were so issued. Clearly, the petitioners cannot be said to be persons aggrieved.” 33. The facts of the said case are no different from the present one. The petitioners, in fact, appear to be proxies on fighting the present litigation by the competitors, who are already in business and appear to be conducting business of store and sale of petroleum products in and around the location, which is the subject matter of controversy. 34. Petitioners, thus, at all cannot be said to be persons aggrieved and, therefore, in my opinion, even otherwise have no locus to challenge the NOC in question. 35. Having considered the matter, this petition is found to be without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/-.