By the Court.—Heard Shri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Shri Prakash Padia for respondent No. 5.

2. By means of this petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 25.4.2013 passed by District Magistrate refusing to grant No Objection Certificate for establishing petroleum retail outlet on the ground that the same is located within 300 metres of another retail outlet, which is violative of paragraph 4.6 of the Indian Road Congress Guidelines (hereinafter referred to IRC Guidelines).

3. Brief facts necessary for the purposes of adjudicating the dispute in this petition are that the Indian Oil Corporation issued an Advertisement dated 20.12.2010 inviting application for establishment of a Kisan Seva Kendra, a retail outlet for petroleum products at Gawan, Babraula road, Block Rajaura, District Sambhal. Petitioner was one of the applicants in pursuance to the said advertisement. After undergoing the process prescribed for selection, the petitioner was selected and a letter of intent dated 15.11.2012 was issued to him. As required under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, the Indian Oil Corporation applied to the District Magistrate for a No Objection Certificate to establish the retail outlet. The Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), who was delegated the matter, called for report from police, fire, forest, revenue department, Pollution Control Board as well as Public Works Department. All the departments submitted a report raising no objection to the retail outlet at the proposed site, except for the Public Works Department. An objection was raised by the P.W.D. citing paragraph 4.6 of the IRC Guidelines alleging that since the retail outlet to be established is situate within 90 metres of an existing retail outlet, whereas the minimum distance provided under the IRC Guidelines, is 300 metres, as such, No Objection Certificate cannot be granted.

4. On the basis of the objection raised by the P.W.D., respondent No. 3 Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) vide order dated 25.4.2013 refused to grant No Objection Certificate.

5. Shri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the guidelines prescribed by the IRC, which has been relied upon for refusing No Objection Certificate, are not statutory guidelines, thus, violation of any of the norms prescribed therein, cannot constitute a valid and legal ground to refuse the No Objection Certificate.

6. Reliance in support of the contention that the said guidelines are not statutory in nature, has been placed upon Division Bench decision in the cases of M/s. Vikash Traders v. Union of India and others, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36700 of 2005 decided on 6.5.2005, Lila Dhar Gera v. The Union of India and others, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12283 of 2010 decided on 20.7.2010 and Mahtab Ahmad v. Union of India Thru Prin. Sec. Mini of Pet. and others, Writ Petition No. 43483 of 2010, decided on 29.7.2010.

7. Shri Prakash Padia, learned counsel appearing for the Indian Oil Corporation has supported the case of the petitioner.

8. However, learned Standing Counsel contended that the proposed location is not only contrary to the norms led by the IRC Guidelines, but is also contrary to the guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways dated 25.9.2003, which provided that minimum distance between two fuel stations should be 300 metres from the middle of the intersection. It is further contended that Public Works Department vide its letter dated 9.12.2003, directed all the Superintending Engineers to ensure compliance of the letter dated 25.9.2003 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. He further submitted that by virtue of letter dated 9.12.2003, the guidelines issued by the Government of India dated 25.9.2003 have been made applicable in respect of fuel pumps sought to be op