HEMANT GUPTA, J.

1. The plaintiff is in present revision petition aggrieved against the orders passed by the Courts below, whereby its application for adinterim injunction restraining the respondents from opening the fuel filling station, was dismissed.

2. The sole argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, is based on the instructions IRC 12, 1983, issued by the Ministry of Surface transport (Roads Wing), which contemplates that clear distance between two adjacent fuel filling stations should not be less than 300 meters. Clause 4.2 contemplates that if for some reasons, two or more fuel filling stations are sited in close proximity, these should be grouped together and a parallel service road provided by way of common access to the Highway.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that Clause 4.2 is proviso to the general rule and therefore, the competent authority is to record sufficient reasons as to why two adjacent fuel filling stations are permitted.

4. However, I am unable to accept the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Once Clause 4.2 deals with the fuel filling stations in close proximity, therefore, such clause