Hon'ble LOHRA, J.—The matter comes up on second stay petition preferred on behalf of the petitioner but with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally at this stage.

2. By this writ petition, an authorized dealer of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) for MS/HSD Retail Outlet, located at Bhadrajun-Nayad/Bhadrajun-Ahore road, near Nosra Choraha, District Jalore, has challenged impugned No Objection Certificate dated 19th of August 2013 issued by the District Collector, Jalore for setting up of MS/HSD outlet of fourth respondent Indian Oil Corporation Limited (for short, `IOCL') at village Dudiya, Tehsil Ahore, District Jalore and sought a direction against the respondents to regulate and follow the Notification dated 25th of September 2003 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways with guidelines provided therein. The petitioner, in the writ petition has precisely placed heavy reliance on the Notification Annex. 4 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India to assail the impugned NOC issued in favour of fourth respondent. In the writ petition, it is specifically pleaded by the petitioner that the competent authority while issuing NOC has not adhered to clause 5, 6.3 and 6.9 of the Notification dated 25th of September 2003, and therefore, the impugned NOC deserves to be annulled. In this connection, the petitioner has also placed heavy reliance in the pleadings on entries in the checklist (Annex. II) with specific emphasis on stipulated norms for fuel outlets. While referring to Clause 4, the petitioner has stated in the writ petition that the proposed MS/HSD outlet is located at 250 meters from Toll Plaza and therefore it is in clear violation of the guidelines incorporated in Annex. 4. According to the petitioner, the recitals contained in Clause 4 makes it crystal clear that proposed outlet is at a distance of 250 meters from Toll Plaza. The petitioner has also placed on record with the second stay petition guidelines issued by the Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Government of Rajasthan dated 3rd of October 2006 and submitted that Clause 1 & 2 of the said guidelines have not been followed while issuing the impugned NOC.

3. All the respondents have submitted their separate reply to the writ petition defending the impugned NOC. The first respondent in its reply has countered all the allegations contained in the writ petition and submitted that the writ petition is filed by the petitioner to claim monopoly over the business of MS/HSD outlet in the area. It is also averred in the reply that NOC was issued after soliciting requisite reports from the concerned officers and therefore the same is perfectly valid. While adverting to the fact that a brick kiln is situated nearby, it is averred in the reply that the same is not in operation from 29th of July 2013.

4. The second respondent, in its reply, has also defended the NOC issued in favour of IOCL. In the return, the second respondent District Collector has specifically pleaded that on receipt of application for NOC from respondent No. 4, in compliance of Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules 2002, it has solicited necessary reports from the Public Works Department, District Superintendent of Police, District Supply Officer, Sub Divisional Magistrate and Deputy Conservator of Forest and when all these authorities have not submitted any objectionable report being satisfied with the facts and circumstances, the requisite NOC was issued. Joining the issue with the petitioner on the existence of Toll Plaza at a distance of 250 meters, second respondent has averred that no such report was submitted by the Public Works Department at the time of issuance of NOC.

5. On behalf of respondent No. 3, reply is submitted denying all the allegations contained in the writ petition. While attributing motive to the petitioner, the third respondent has averred in the reply that the who