JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by grant of retail outlet in favour of the private respondent vide LOI issued on 9.8.2023. It is alleged that the petitioner is also running a retail outlet of Indian Oil Corporation in the near vicinity and therefore, issuance of LOI to establish a retail outlet in favour of respondent no. 6 is impermissible. 2. The petitioner at present is a rival businessman and she is opposing establishment a new retail outlet. No provision of law or marketing guidelines have been shown under which such opening of a new petrol pump would be prohibited. Attention of this Court has been invited to the circular issued by the Government of India on 26.6.2020, in which the distance contemplated between two fuel stations is stated to be 300 metres in case of undivided carriageway and 1000 metres in respect of divided carriageway. In the writ petition, however, there is no pleading that this guideline has been violated. It is otherwise the law settled that the establishment of a new retail outlet cannot be objected to by the existing retail outlet dealer in view of the law settled by the Supreme Court in case of Jas Bhai Moti Bhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar , (1976) 1 SCC 671 . Such issue has been taken note of by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ C No. 14091 of 2020, wherein following observations have been made in paragraphs 6 to 10: “6. Admittedly, the petitioner is running a petrol pump. By means of present writ petition he is opposing the establishment of another petrol pump near his petrol pump. Thus, the whole effort of the petitioner by means of this writ petition is to stop a new operator coming in the field as his competitor. The petitioner has no fundamental or statutory right to stop another operator coming in business near his petrol pump. 7. In Nagar Rice and Flour Mills Vs. N.T. Gowda , (1970) 1 SCC 575 it was held that a rice mill owner has no locus standi to challenge under Article 226 the setting up a new rice mill by another for the reason that none of his vested rights are infringed. 8. A similar view was taken in the decisions in Jas Bhai Moti Bhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar , (1976) 1 SCC 671 and Mithilesh Garg and other Vs. 8. A similar view was taken in the decisions in Jas Bhai Moti Bhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar , (1976) 1 SCC 671 and Mithilesh Garg and other Vs. Union of India and others , (1992) 1 SCC 168 . 9. We are not inclined to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction where the claim of the petitioner is essentially aimed at eliminating healthy competition and for perpetuating his monopoly in the area. 10. For all the reasons aforestated, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground that petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the writ petition.” 3. Once that be so, we cannot entertain the present writ petition in respect of issuance of LOI to the private respondent for the deliberations made hereinabove. 4. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.