Hon’ble Ajay Bhanot, J.—An advertisement was published in widely circulated newspapers on 8.7.2017 inviting applications from eligible and interested parties for setting up of MS/HSD, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘BPCL’) retail outlet dealership at SH-83 Etawah to Mainpuri Road between KM Stone 36 to 41. In response to the advertisement the petitioner presented the application alongwith his credentials for appointment as retail outlet dealer. After submission of the applications by interested parties at the behest of the advertisement, the selection process entered the subsequent phases. At the conclusion of the selection proceedings petitioner was awarded the retail outlet dealership of MS/HSD, BPCL proposed to be located at the appointed site. A letter of intent was issued by BPCL on 21.7.2017 to the petitioner advising various terms and conditions of retail outlet dealership. Petitioner was always ready and willing to fulfill his part of the conditions detailed in the letter of intent. The terms of the letter of intent enjoined the petitioner to give full assistance to BPCL for obtaining the requisite No Objection Certificates (hereinafter referred to as ‘NOC’) from appropriate authorities. The BPCL with the assistance of the petitioner submitted the applications alongwith supporting testimonials to various competent and statutory authorities, to take out the NOCs for the subject retail outlet. The aforesaid applications were processed by the competent authorities. Meticulous investigations were carried out by the authorities into the subject-matter which fell in their jurisdiction. The Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri and the Fire Authorities possessing jurisdiction, having found the subject retail outlet to be compliant with the requirements of law, issued the NOC to the petitioner.

2. However, the Executive Engineer, PWD (respondent No. 3) by order dated 7.9.2017 refused to issue NOC. Without the requisite NOC the petitioner cannot establish the retail outlet. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid rejection of his application for grant of NOC has instituted the instant writ petition assailing the aforesaid order.

3. The order impugned in the instant writ petition dated 7.9.2017 passed by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Construction Division-3, Mainpuri has declined the NOC to the petitioner on the ground that the proposed retail outlet dealership was situated within 90 metres of Ratibhanpur Sahan Marg intersection. The aforesaid location of the proposed retail outlet fell within the proscribed distance of 300 metres from an intersection. The said prohibition was created by the Indian Road Congress Guidelines, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IRCG’). In short the location of the retail outlet dealership violated the IRCG norms for situating retail outlet dealership.

4. Heard Sri Ajay Vikram Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri Vikas Budhwar, counsel for respondent No. 4.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on various grounds. The first submission made by Sri Ajay Vikram Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the refusal to grant NOC by the impugned order to set up retail outlet dealership on the proposed site is based solely on the ground of violation of IRCG. The proposed location is within 90 metres of Ratibhanpur Sahan Marg intersection, while the IRCG provide that no retail outlet can be situated within 300 metres of any intersection. Elaborating his submission, Sri Ajay Vikram Yadav contends that aforesaid norms laid down by the IRCG relating to the situation of retail outlet dealership are not applicable to the case of the petitioner. The application of IRCG norms to the case of the petitioner and the rejection of the NOC for alleged v