JUDGMENT 1. The writ petition of petitioner Mahendra Kumar came up before this Court for orders on application moved by respondent no.7 for vacation of the stay order passed by this Court dated 17/07/2018. However, since the arguments to be advanced would be almost similar for the purpose of disposal of the writ petitions, learned counsel for both the parties were asked to advance arguments in both the writ petitions for final disposal and after hearing arguments, the order was reserved in both the writ petitions. 2. The petitioner Mahendra Kumar has filed writ petition stating that he had applied for a retail outlet in pursuance of the application invited by respondent no.6 wherein ultimately a letter of appointment was issued for running a retail outlet in favour of respondent no.7 at Khasra No.251/2 & 251/3 at Village Rampura Thoi, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar. The petitioner-Mahendra Kumar has challenged the said appointment of retail outlet on the ground that the respondents no.4 & 5 have illegally relaxed the norms for establishment of retail outlet and have wrongfully issued NOC. It is submitted that the Committee established for grant of relaxation had denied relaxation keeping in mind the safety measures vide letter dated 05/04/2017 as the distance from intersection with rural road with carriage way width of 3.50 metres or more as per norms should be 300 meters whereas at proposed site it is 77 meters only and secondly that the intersection with rural road and other earth tracks with carriageway width less than 3.5 meters should be 100 meters as per the norms but at the proposed site, it is 75 meters only. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the letter dated 05/04/2017 for the said purpose and submitted that since the norms laid down by the Indian Road Congress were required to be followed, the relaxation granted was unjustified and would affect the safety of the local people. It is submitted that despite the letter sent by the Committee, the Executive Engineer, PWD, Neem-Ka-Thana, Sikar vide his letter dated 18/12/2017 recommended for relaxation of norms, although he could not have done so in view of an order passed by the superior authority. 4. It is submitted that despite the letter sent by the Committee, the Executive Engineer, PWD, Neem-Ka-Thana, Sikar vide his letter dated 18/12/2017 recommended for relaxation of norms, although he could not have done so in view of an order passed by the superior authority. 4. It is further submitted that the PWD has also issued a circular/notification dated 27/12/2004 laying down the norms for the access for fuel stations, service stations and rest areas along State Highways/MDR's/ODR's. It is submitted that as per clause 6.1 of the said circular, the norms as pointed out herein above, were required to be followed. It is stated that on 24/04/2012, the Chief Engineer (Roads), PWD, Rajasthan, Jaipur had written a letter to all the concerned authorities not to forward any case for relaxation in the norms laid down by the Indian Road Congress. The petitioner had approached this Court earlier by filing SB Civil Writ Petition No.1835/2017 wherein this Court passed an order on 10/02/2017 observing that the petitioner is required to approach respondent no.2-District Collector, Sikar by filing representation who would examine whether the NOC has been wrongly granted in the light of the judgment cited before this Court and decide the same by passing speaking order within a period of one month from the date of its filing. 5. Reply to the writ petition has been filed by respondent no.7 as well as respondents No.1 to 5. The respondent no.7 has stated that the petitioner, in-spite of directions issued by the High Court did not make any representation in terms of the judgment passed by this Court earlier in the writ petition preferred by him and the District Collector thereafter, has examined the matter and passed an order on 16/10/2017 upholding the relaxation granted. Learned counsel for respondent no.7 further stated that the said order has not been challenged by the petitioner. It is further stated that before filing of this writ petition, another writ petition, bearing SB Civil Writ Petition No.10232/2018 was filed by one Jhabar Singh Jhakar, who is a closed relative of the petitioner, who sought relief on the same premise as the case of petitioner-Mahendra Kumar. It is further stated that before filing of this writ petition, another writ petition, bearing SB Civil Writ Petition No.10232/2018 was filed by one Jhabar Singh Jhakar, who is a closed relative of the petitioner, who sought relief on the same premise as the case of petitioner-Mahendra Kumar. It is further submitted that the said Jhabar Singh Jhakhar has a petrol pump at Thoi-Ajeetgarh Road and the petitioner-Mahendra Kumar was also working with petitioner-Jhabar Singh Jhakar on the said petrol pump as per the report submitted by the SHO, Police Station-Thoi and the purpose of filing of the writ petition is rivalry as there is likelihood and chances of the business being affected by the respondent no.7 on account of establishment of the petrol pump. The SHO has also submitted report that there is no objection from any local person with regard to establishment of the petrol pump nor there is any thickly populated area. Learned counsel further submitted that the State Government earlier had also granted approval for relaxation in norms on 22/01/2016 at the time of establishment of petrol pump by Jhabar Singh Jhakar in Khasra No.147/3 at Village Ralawata, Tehsil Khandela, District Sikar. A copy of the said order dated 22/01/2016 has been placed on record. It is further submitted that the writ petition has been filed for extraneous purposes and when there was no interim order passed in the case of Jhabar Singh Jhakar, in the present writ petition filed by Mahendra Kumar, without informing about Jhabar Singh Jhakar's case, the Court was persuaded to grant interim order of status-quo. Learned counsel further submitted that the sanction granted is legal and in the facts of the case, the norms laid down by the Indian Road Congress are advisory and relaxation can be granted taking into consideration facts of each case. It is submitted that after the petitioner-Mahendra Kumar filed an application for relaxation, the petitioner-Jhabhar Singh Jhakar, in order to influence the authorities, filed a complaint before the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) and during the enquiry period, the Additional Chief Secretary refused relaxation. It is submitted that after the petitioner-Mahendra Kumar filed an application for relaxation, the petitioner-Jhabhar Singh Jhakar, in order to influence the authorities, filed a complaint before the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) and during the enquiry period, the Additional Chief Secretary refused relaxation. Thereafter, the Superintending Engineer, PWD, Sikar submitted his detailed report relating to establishment of Essar Petrol Pump vide his letter dated 20/04/2017 and it was informed that there is a 'Kachha Rasta' from the place of petrol pump which is 75 meters far instead of 100 meters and in the application, there has been no concealment relating to the existing 'Kachha Rasta' of 75 meters and gravel road at the distance of 77 meters. The Superintendent of Police, Sikar has also given NOC vide letter dated 18/06/2018 for the purpose of establishment of Petrol Pump. Learned counsel has taken this Court to the order passed by the Collector, Sikar after the orders passed by the Court in the earlier writ petition to point out that the petitioner did not submit any representation and registered letter was sent to him to make representation but he did not accept the said letter. The Gram Panchayat has also issued NOC for establishment of Petrol Pump. 6. The State Authorities (respondents No.1 to 5) have also filed their reply and it is stated that the writ petition is not maintainable and sustainable because the State Government is fully empowered to give relaxation in the norms in rural areas subject to road safety. Learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 5 relies on the judgment passed in Mahesh Kumar v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation & Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.9487/2016), decided on 23/11/2016 wherein similar contentions were raised by the person praying for not allowing the respondents therein to establish Petrol Pump and for not issuing NOC to respondent no.5 and the Court vide order dated 23/11/2016 dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable at the behest of third party which had malafide intention. 7. As regards the other writ petition filed by the petitioner- Jhabhar Singh Jakhar, he has also assailed the same orders of relaxation granted by the State. 7. As regards the other writ petition filed by the petitioner- Jhabhar Singh Jakhar, he has also assailed the same orders of relaxation granted by the State. It is stated that the petitioner has established a Petrol Pump wherein LOI was issued on 07/11/2005 and submitted that the High Court in its judgment dated 13/11/2017 rendered in SB Civil Writ Petition No.3277/2017 has held that there is no power vested in the State Government to relax the norms prescribed by the Indian Road Congress. 8. The State has filed reply to the writ petition filed by petitioner-Jhabar Singh Jahkhar and it is stated that the relaxation is granted subject to conditions relating to the road safety as mentioned in the order dated 24/04/2018 and the State Government is fully empowered to give relaxation in the norms in rural areas subject to road safety. 9. After having noticed the aforesaid submissions, this Court finds that earlier the petitioner-Mahendra Kumar had filed a writ petition, bearing SB Civil Writ Petition No.1835/2017 wherein this Court passed an order dated 10/02/2017 directing the petitioner to approach the District Collector, Sikar by filing a representation alongwith copy of the order and the District Collector, Sikar was directed to examine thereafter whether the NOC was wrongly granted in the light of the judgment. An additional affidavit has been filed by petitioner-Mahendra Kumar stating that he had submitted representation alongwith copy of the order in the office of the Collector and for the said purpose he has placed on record a letter dated 21/03/2017. However, this Court finds that the petitioner Mahendra Kumar has only submitted a copy of the order passed by the High Court and no representation was submitted by him. The Collector has also noticed in its order that no representation had been filed. Even in the affidavit filed by the petitioner, he has neither specifically stated as to whether he filed a presentation nor he has placed any representation on record. Even during the course of hearing, the petitioner's counsel was unable to place any document to show that the petitioner filed representation in compliance of the earlier order passed by this Court. In fact, a letter dated 18/09/2017 was sent to petitioner- Mahendra Kumar asking him to submit representation in terms of the order passed by this Court dated 10/02/2017 but the petitioner did not submit any representation. In fact, a letter dated 18/09/2017 was sent to petitioner- Mahendra Kumar asking him to submit representation in terms of the order passed by this Court dated 10/02/2017 but the petitioner did not submit any representation. Thus, the petitioner has not come out with clean hands. 10. It is also noticed that the petitioners-Mahendra Kumar and Jhabar Singh Jakhar are close relatives and they already have set up Petrol Pump and do not want another Petrol Pump to be set up on account of the rivalry in trade. 11. However, this Court also has to examine whether the relaxation could have been granted by the Chief Engineer, PWD, Rajasthan. It is noticed that on 05/04/2017, the Chief Engineer, PWD has refused to grant relaxation in the norms. It has come on record that on 20/04/2017, a detailed report was submitted in relation to the complaint made by the petitioner. The intersection clause as per the report is with reference to a gravel road which is 77 meters away from the Petrol Pump site and an earth track ('Kachcha Rasta') which is 75 meters away. It is also noticed that both the roads, which are stated to be 75 meters away and 77 meters away, lead to a small group of houses ('Dhani') and ends there. It is not a regular road. Keeping in view all these aspects, the respondent no.7 has requested for granting him relaxation for setting up Petrol Pump. However, the question remains whether the Chief Engineer, PWD can grant relaxation. 12. In Sweta Devi v. State of Raj. & Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.3277/2017), decided on 13/11/2017, the coordinate Bench of this Court accepted admission of counsel appearing for PWD that relaxation could not be granted and proceeded to hold that it is otherwise a fact that no relaxation was granted. However, in the present case, this Court notices that the norms were issued by the Chief Engineer, PWS on 27/12/2004 keeping in mind the road safety. The word 'norms' essentially connote guidelines and therefore, cannot be said to be of statutory character. 13. In the present case, it is the Chief Engineer, PED who, after considering all the aspects, has granted relaxation and vide his order has also directed that the Oil Company would construct necessary speed breakers, sign boards, warning/informatory sign boards on the junction & on both sides of the road. 13. In the present case, it is the Chief Engineer, PED who, after considering all the aspects, has granted relaxation and vide his order has also directed that the Oil Company would construct necessary speed breakers, sign boards, warning/informatory sign boards on the junction & on both sides of the road. Direction has also been issued to construct at least 5.5 meters wide approach road of appropriate length at their own cost. The relaxation order has been issued from the office of the Chief Engineer, PWD on the basis of approval by a Committee constituted by the Chief Engineer, PWD as is mentioned. 14. Keeping in view that the relaxation has been granted at the level of the Committee chaired by the Chief Engineer, PWD and the norms were laid down by the Chief Engineer, PWD, it cannot be said that the Chief Engineer, PWD does not have power to change the norms or to relax the norms laid down earlier. 15. It is also noticed that earlier also, the Chief Manager, PWD has granted relaxation on 22/01/2016 where there is intersection with rural roads and earth tracks. 16. In the present case also, there is an earth track and a rural road which ends to small groups of houses ('Dhanis'). Thus, it cannot be said in strict terms to be intersection with regular roads. Keeping in view above, the Chief Engineer, PWD is found to have granted relaxation similarly to the respondent no.7 also. 17. In view of the discussions made above, this Court finds that the writ petitioners have preferred both these writ petitions with oblique motive and mal-intention. Moreover, the order passed earlier was not complied with by the petitioner-Mahendra Kumar. 18. In view of the findings as above, no case for interference is made out and both the writ petitions are dismissed as having no merit. The order passed by the Chief Engineer, PWD, Rajasthan, Jaipur, as issued under his direction by the Superintending Engineer (Roads), PWD, Rajasthan, Jaipur dated 24/04/2018 is upheld and the respondents shall be free to proceed. The stay order passed by the Court stands vacated. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. No costs.