B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Considering the nature of controversy involved in the matter, in view of orders dated 19.08.2016, Rule is made returnable forthwith and Writ Petition is heard finally with consent of the parties.

2. Only question raised by the petitioner is Whether respondent no.2 can be permitted to have a retail outlet on same highway in the vicinity of petitioner, at a distance of less than 300 meters?

3. During the pendency of this Writ Petition, distance between the two spots has been verified and a communication with map dated 18.08.2017 shows that the Sub Divisional Engineer, Public Works Department, Deulgaon Raja has found distance between site of petitioner and site of respondent no.2 to be 304 meters. This communication is brought on record by respondent no.2 with his affidavit on 24.11.2017, and thereafter the matter was listed before this Court on 18.12.2017, 08.01.2018, 12.01.2018 and today. Petitioner has not countered this position. On the contrary, during arguments effort has been made to show that said distance has to be 1000 meters.

4. Shri Dhengale, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner has invited our attention to assertions in paragraph no.10 of the Writ Petition to show that distance has to be minimum 1000 meters and in present facts it is less than 900 sq. ft.

5. Shri Sambre, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1, Shri Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.2 and Ms. Chandurkar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.6 have relied upon provisions contained in Guidelines for Access, Location and Layout of Roadside Fuel Stations and Service Stations (3rd Revision). These guidelines are also relied upon by the petitioner, and he has produced the same as Annexure-8 with

4. his Writ Petition. He has referred to these guidelines as “Indian Road Congress Guidelines”.

6. Perusal of said guidelines particularly, Clause 1.2 shows that the same are finalized in consultation with the Ministry of Petroleum and Oil Companies. Nobody has disputed its binding nature before us.

7. Clause 4.5.3 of these Guidelines stipulates that there shall be not be any median gap on a divided carriageway within a distance of 300 meters on each side of the fuel station. Clause 4.6. stipulates that minimum distance between two fuel stations has to be 300 meters in plain and rolling terrain in nonurban [rural] areas. This 300 meters minimum distance is attracted when retail outlet is on an undivided carriage way. Clause 4.6.1 [i] deals with this location specifically. It is mentioned that it is applicable for both sides of carriage way.

8. Clause 4.6.1 [ii] speaks of divided carriageway, where there is no gap in median at “this location and stretch”. The minimum distance provided therein is 1000 meters, and this is followed by a note. Note [i] stipulates that minimum distance of 300 meters between two fuel stations on both sides of the road is applicable for undivided carriageway only. In case of divided carriage way with no gap in medians, the distances restrictions is not applicable on opposite side of the fuel station and the minimum distance between two fuel stations on same side shall be 1000 meters. We are not concerned with other clauses in present controversy.

9. The undisputed communication issued by the Department of State Government does not show that the carriageway with which we are concerned, is having any median. Petrol pump of petitioner is of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, while proposed petrol pump of respondent no.2 is of Bharat Petroleum Corporation.

10. Petitioner also has not in his petition pointed out that the carriageway in front of his petrol pump is having any median. He has also not pointed out that the petrol pump of respondent no.2 is on same side of the road i.e. on his side of carriageway only. However, respondent nos. 1 and 2 have not disputed the fact that petrol pump of petitioner and respondent no.2 are on s