1. The petitioner, an agent of M/s. Essar Oil Limited, running a retail outlet, at Parashurampura Village, Challakere Taluk, assails the validity of a "No Objection Certificate", issued vide Annexure-A, by respondent No.1, for establishing another 20 KL HSD and 15 KL Petrol Bunk, at Parashurampura Village, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District.

2. The Executive Director, M/s. Essar Oil Limited, Chennai, having made an application for issue of 'No Objection Certificate', for establishing a new retail outlet at Sy.No.189/2, Parashurampura Village, Challakere Taluk, to store 20 KL MS and 40 KL HSD and the first respondent having issued 'No Objection Certificate', on 20.10.2004, the petitioner is running the said outlet. The 2nd respondent having made an application, the first respondent issued 'No Objection Certificate', vide Annexure-A, to establish 20 KL HSD and 15 KL Petrol Bunk, at Sy.No.294/1B, Parashurampura Village, Challakere Taluk.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the first respondent has acted against the guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, in the matter of issuance of 'No Objection Certificate', in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3, as the distance between the existing petrol bunk run by him and the proposed petrol bunk is 158 meters only.

4. Sri K. Rama Bhat, learned advocate, contended that the petitioner having established a petrol bunk in 2004, would be severely affected, on account of another petrol bunk being permitted to be established by respondents 2 and 3, within a distance of 158 meters. He submitted that the guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, has been ignored by respondent No.1, while issuing the NOC. He further submitted that there being violation of guideline issued by respondent No.1, the impugned action is arbitrary and illegal.

5. Sri H.B. Mahesh, learned HCGP and Sriyuths B.S. Sachin and C.M. Kempe Gowda, learned advocates, appearing for respondents, on the other hand, by referring to the statement of objections filed to this writ petition, submitted that the petitioner has no subsisting legal right to challenge the NOC issued to set up a retail outlet of M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, in the property belonging to respondent No.3. They submitted that the impugned action of the first respondent being in conformity with the Judgment dated 23.01.2013, passed in W.A.No.50299/2012, no interference with Annexure-A is called for.

6. Perused the writ record and considered the rival contentions. Respondent No.1 while issuing the NOC, has placed reliance on a report dated 05.10.2013 vide Annexure-R11, submitted by the Assistant Commissioner, Chitradurga and on the Judgment dated 23.01.2013 passed in W.A.No.50299/2012.

7. Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, sent a communication dated 17.10.2003, vide Annexure-R4, containing the guidelines for the access for fuel stations, service stations and rest areas, along National Highways. Concededly, the place where the petitioner is running the retail outlet of M/s. Essar Oil Limited and the proposed retail outlet of respondent No.2 are not situated along side of a National Highway. The said communication is with regard to minimum distance from an intersection for the siting of fuel stations along National Highways. Hence, the contention of Sri K. Rama Bhat, that respondent No.1 has acted against the guidelines issued by the Government, in the matter of issuance of the impugned NOC, has no merit.

8. In M/s. SHANTHI INSTITUTE OF COMMERCE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS, AIR 1989 KAR 325, one of the questions that arose for consideration was whether an existing institution has any locus standi to file a petition challenging the recognition granted to a rival institution. Relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in "THE NAGAR RICE AND FLOUR MILLS Vs. N. TEEKAPPA GOWDA AND BROTHERS (AIR 1971 SC 246) AND JASBHAI MOTIBHAI DESAI Vs