JUDGMENT :

Tashi Rabstan, J.

1. M/s. Nun Kun Filling Station-petitioners herein, claim to have responded to a notice issued by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) for Retail Outlet Dealership at Location Kargil Town District Kargil-under ST Category (Women). Her application form is said to have been entertain and after participation in the process of selection, petitioner No. 2 was selected for Retail Outlet Dealership vide letter dated 28th August 2006 (Annexure A to both writ petitions). The petrol pump, according to petitioners, is being run since 2007 smoothly. It is asserted that in the month of June 2017, respondent No. 7 came on spot and started developing the land adjacent to the pump of petitioners and when petitioners enquired from the labourers, they were apprised that respondent No. 7 had been allotted retail outlet, dealership. Upon having the said ken, petitioners represented to respondents 4 & 5 for stopping establishment of pump on the proposed site. Petitioners also came to know about issuance of NOC dated 18th November 2012, by District Magistrate Kargil. This is stated to have forced petitioners to approach this Court with writ petition, bearing OWP No. 2008/2017, seeking quashment of NOC dated 18th November 2017 [Annexure to writ petition) issued by respondent No. 5. They seek writ of prohibition, prohibiting official respondents from allowing private respondent No. 7 to raise any consideration for establishment of retail outlet to the existing petrol pump of petitioners. Petitioners also seek a direction to respondents 4 & 7 from raising further construction upon the site adjacent to the petitioners on the basis of impugned NOC and directing them to follow the guidelines issued by respondents 1 & 3 and also followed by Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. Petitioners also pray for a direction to respondents 1 & 3 to seek explanation from respondents 4, 5 & 7 as to who and in what manner they have issued NOC as well as they are raising construction in violation of guidelines issued by respondents 1 & 3 and followed by authorities of respondent No. 4 as well and take administration action against respondent No. 4 for flouting guidelines which are mandatory in nature, with further direction to take formal decision upon the representations and pay to petitioner for the damage caused to them while proposing to install retail outlet adjacent to their existing fuel station and produce whole record pertaining to the process initiated by respondent No. 4 before allowing respondent No. 7 to raise construction more particularly permission, if any, granted by respondents 1 to 3 as well as respondent No. 6 before this Court.

2. Reply has been filed by respondent No. 4, in which he insists that petitioners have no locus standi to file present writ petition, in that the same has been filed for enforcement of non-statutory guidelines, viz. guidelines recommended by IRC etcetera, which is not maintainable. Petitioners have failed to show that such guidelines are framed under any Act of the Legislature or that they are statutory norms. If the norms are not statutory, petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly for writ of mandamus for its enforcement, is not maintainable. Petitioners have failed to establish any breach of statutory duty or obligation towards them on part of respondents. It is also insisted that petitioners have failed to establish any injury or damage of any kind that the Statute was designed to give protection. Petitioners are allottees and running retail outlet in the vicinity and determination of the question qua location being totally in the domain of respondent No. 4 and petitioners cannot question establishment of a retail outlet on the ground that it is in the vicinity or on the ground that it has violated the guidelines or regulations. Respondent highlights that it is a settled law that a rival businessman cannot file a writ petition challenging setting up of a si