ORDER : SUDESH BANSAL, J. 1. On the request of counsel for both parties, this first appeal was allowed to be heard finally at admission stage vide order dated 09.10.2025. Hence, with the consent of counsel for both parties, this first appeal has been heard finally on merits. Perused the record of trial Court and the material available on record. 2. This is plaintiff's first appeal under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 07.08.2021 passed in Civil Suit No.13/2020 titled as M/s Shriji Filling Station Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., by Additional District Judge No.1 Bharatpur, dismissing plaintiff's suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of not establishing a Petrol and Diesel Pump of IOCL at a distance of less than 300 Meter from the Petrol Pump of plaintiff. 3. Undisputed facts which have culled out from the record, in nutshell, are that plaintiff's Petrol Pump of BPCL is already established at Khasra No.4240, Bharatpur, Kumher Road, a State Highway. On this State Highway, IOCL advertised for establishing an another Petrol Pump in Khasra No.2476, just opposite to the plaintiff's Petrol Pump. The advertisement by IOCL was published on 14.12.2018 and in pursuance thereof, allotment of Petrol Pump was made through lottery system and draw was opened in the name of one Mr. Ankit Kumar Jain. After completing the other requirements of inspection of land, measurement, location, suitability etc., IOCL issued an Letter of Intent (LoI) in his favour on 23.01.2020 and applied for issuance of NOC by the State authorities. At this juncture, plaintiff led the present suit on 23.07.2020, raising an objection that the proposed Petrol Pump by IOCL is going to be established at a distance of less than 300 Meters from his Petrol Pump, which cannot be permitted according to the Circular dated 24.07.2013 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, hence, prayed to issue decree for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants herein, to this effect. 4. During course of arguments, it has not been disputed that the proposed Petrol Pump of IOCL is to be established on the State Highway and the Circular dated 24.07.2013 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, is not applicable, rather the guidelines dated 11.02.2021 issued by the Public Works Department, Government of Rajasthan, are applicable. 5. 5. As per the guidelines and norms of the State Government for establishment of Petrol Pumps on the State Highway, Rule 2.3 provides an exception to establish a Petrol Pump/Fuel Station at a closer proximity than 300 Meters. For ready reference, Rule 2.3 reads as under:- "Further, access for fuel stations at closer proximity than 300m may be allowed provided entry/exit for both the fuel stations are provided through service road of 7.0m width having sufficient length: further additional length of such service road shall be constructed at the cost of the later fuel station owner/company seeking grant of permission for access for the facility." 6. Learned trial Court, after recording evidence of both the parties and appreciating Rule 2.3 of the guidelines framed by the Government of Rajasthan, held and observed in the impugned judgment that the Circular of Government of India dated 24.07.2013 is not applicable to the questioned Petrol Pump and as per the guidelines of State Government, establishment of Petrol Pump at a closer proximity than 300 Meters is permissible subject to fulfillment of prerequisites stipulated therein. Thus, the plaintiff's claim that no Petrol Pump can be allowed to establish on closer proximity to 300 Meters than his Petrol Pump, was rejected and plaintiff's suit was dismissed on merits vide judgment dated 07.08.2021 which is impugned herein. 7. It is noteworthy at the outset that after dismissal of the plaintiff's suit, NOC by the Department of PWD dated 01.08.2023 has been issued and in furtherance thereof, NOC by the Office of District Collector and District Magistrate, Deeg, dated 27.10.2023 has also been issued, permitting to establish and run the Petrol Pump of IOCL in Khasra No.2476 at the State Highway of Bharatpur-Kumher Road. Copies of NOC dated 01.08.2023 and 27.10.2023 have been placed on record and both NOCs have not been challenged. Counsel for the appellant is fair enough to admit during course of the arguments about issuance of both NOCs and non-challenge to these NOCs by the plaintiff-appellant. 8. It is further noteworthy that at the time of passing interim order in the present first appeal, establishment of Petrol Pump on the proposed site was not stayed, hence, it has been informed to this Court that outlet of Petrol Pump has also been established on the proposed site but because of stay order dated 19.01.2024, same has not started. It is further noteworthy that at the time of passing interim order in the present first appeal, establishment of Petrol Pump on the proposed site was not stayed, hence, it has been informed to this Court that outlet of Petrol Pump has also been established on the proposed site but because of stay order dated 19.01.2024, same has not started. This factual aspect has not been disputed by the counsel for appellant, as well. 9. A perusal of Rule 2.3 of the guidelines of the State Government goes to show that for establishment of a Fuel Station at a closer proximity than 300 Meters, the essential requirement is that there must be a service of 7 Meter wide and of sufficient length to be constructed by Fuel Station holder to have free access by the consumers to the later established Fuel Station. In the case at hand, requisite service road has already been constructed at site and this fact has also not been disputed rather admitted by the counsel for the appellant. This Court appreciates the fairness of the counsel for the appellant not to dispute the factual aspect. 10. The issue for consideration before this Court in the present appeal, revolves in narrow compass as to whether the appellant- plaintiff has any vested legal right to seek a decree for declaration and permanent injunction, restraining the respondents-defendants not to establish/open a Petrol Pump in close proximity to 300 Meters to the appellant-plaintiff's Petrol Pump. 11. As far as such an issue is concerned, in the light of Rule 2.3 of the guidelines of State Government, appellant-plaintiff, obviously does not have any claim/right to restrain the respondents-defendants, as a fuel station at the State Highway, can be allowed to be established on a lesser distance of 300 Meters than an already established Petrol Pump, subject to compliance of the conditions enumerated in Rule 2.3 quoted hereinabove. In the case at hand, the conditions of Rule 2.3 have been complied with by the allottee of petrol pump and NOC has also been issued as much as Petrol Pump too has been established. At the cost of repetition, above noted factual development is not in dispute at all. Thus, the issue under consideration does not worth merit and is decided against the appellant. 12. At the cost of repetition, above noted factual development is not in dispute at all. Thus, the issue under consideration does not worth merit and is decided against the appellant. 12. In addition to above, this Court finds that plaintiff's suit otherwise suffers from grave latches of non-impleadment of a necessary party viz. Mr. Ankit Kumar Jain, in whose favour, draw to establish the Petrol Pump pursuant to the advertisement dated 14.12.2018 was opened and LoI dated 23.01.2020 has been issued, much prior to filing of the present civil suit on 23.07.2020. The fact of issuance of LOI in favour of Mr. Ankit Kumar Jain, has clearly been disclosed by the respondent-defendant No.4 IOCL in Para No.5 of the written statement, yet plaintiff did not implead Mr. Ankit Kumar Jain as party to the present suit. Certainly, he is the affected and interested person to the issue involved herein and is a necessary party to the present suit. Hence, his non- impleadment is fatal as per Order 1 Rule 9 CPC. For ready reference, Order 1 Rule 9 CPC is reproduced here as under:- " 9. Mis-joinder and non-joinder. No suit shall be defeated by reason of the mis-joinder or non- joinder of parties, and the Court may in every suit deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it: Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to non-joinder of a necessary party." Issue No.5 was specifically framed but the trial Court, erred in deciding Issue No.5. In the opinion of this Court, plaintiff's suit was liable to be dismissed on account of non-joinder of a necessary party, deliberately and knowingly. 13. For the above reasons, the findings of trial Court on merits, dismissing the plaintiff's suit, do not call for any interference and the present first appeal is bereft of any merits and substance. 14. As a result, the first appeal is hereby dismissed. No costs. 15. Interim stay order dated 19.01.2024 in respect of maintaining status quo as exists at the site in question, stands vacated. 16. The judgment has been dictated and pronounced in open Court and no other additional arguments except dealt with hereinabove were raised by either of the counsel appearing on behalf of parties. 17. Record of the trial Court be sent back forthwith. 18. 16. The judgment has been dictated and pronounced in open Court and no other additional arguments except dealt with hereinabove were raised by either of the counsel appearing on behalf of parties. 17. Record of the trial Court be sent back forthwith. 18. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.