A business rival lacks locus standi to challenge the NOC for a competitor's retail outlet, as any adverse effect is damnum sine injuria. Moreover, if the NOC is in conformity with prescribed technical standards, no interference is warranted.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Petitioner has questioned the No Objection Certificate (NOC) dated 24.06.2024 issued by the respondent- Public Works Department in favour of respondent No.7 for setting up and running a petroleum retail outlet over the land comprised in Khata Nos. 62 & 69, Khatauni Nos. 73 & 66 and Khasra No. 317/1 Major District Road 76 Shimla-Mandi (via Tatapani) at Village and Post Office, Baggi, Tehsil Balh, District Mandi, H.P. In essence, the petitioner seeks to assail the setting up of new retail outlet of respondent No.7 over the land in question.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file.

3. The case

3(i). No Objection Certificate was granted by respondents No. 3 & 4- State Public Works Department in favour of respondent No.7 on 13.04.2023 for installing a new petroleum outlet over the above described land. Feeling aggrieved by the issuance of NOC, petitioner instituted Civil Writ Petition No.2578/2023 primarily on the grounds that gradient on the spot in question was more than 05% i.e. maximum limit set down in the guidelines issued by Ministry of Road, Transport & Highways & Indian Roads Congress and also breached distance parameters vis-a-vis residential houses in terms of norms fixed by the Central Pollution Control Board/ Indian Roads Congress guidelines. During pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the respondent- Public Works Department issued a corrigendum on 19.06.2023 withdrawing its previously issued NOC dated 13.04.2023 in favour of respondent No.7. The corrigendum stated that as up-gradation work of the road portion in question i.e. Chail Chowk to Baggi was in progress, there was scope for improvement of road from single lane to intermediate lane which might in turn improve curves as also grades and therefore, keeping in view the scope of up-gradation of the road, NOC issued by the Public Works Department to respondent No.7 though was issued but the final gradient and curve sharpness report/ NOC would be issued only on completion of the up-gradation work of the road. Based upon the aforesaid corrigendum, the petitioner withdrew CWP No.2578/2023 on 09.10.2023.

3(ii). It appears from the record that road was thereafter upgraded. After up-gradation of road, the final gradient of the spot where the retail outlet was to be installed was ascertained as 4.72% i.e. below 5%. Finding the gradient within prescribed parameters, the respondent-Public Works Department issued NOC in favour of respondent No.7 for setting up petroleum retail outlet on 24.06.2024. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has preferred this writ petition. During hearing of the case, it was apprised that pursuant to the NOC so issued, respondent No.7 has since installed the retail outlet and is running the same.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner could not dispute that after up-gradation of road in question, the gradient where the retail outlet was to be set up, was ascertained at 4.72% i.e. well within the permissible norms as per Indian Roads Congress guidelines pressed into service by the petitioner. Regarding the second issue raised by the petitioner i.e. distance between the retail outlet and the residential houses being around 18 meters and therefore, violating the parameters set up in this regard by Central Pollution Control Board, the joint inspection report placed on record as Annexure R7-4 is to the effect that nearest residential house is at a distance of 35 meters from dispensing unit of the retail outlet as against the requirement of 30 meters in the applicable guidelines. Apart from above factual aspects, it needs to be noticed that respondent No.7 in its reply has pointed out petitioner being his business rival; That petitioner is proprietor of Krishma Filling Station, situated at Dharbathu at a distance of 500 meters from the retail outlet in question. Interestingly, the petitioner in his entire writ petition has not even made any whisper about his being in the same business as that