- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri Narendra Prasad Shukla, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 and Sri Vikas Budhwar, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents no. 2 & 3 and have perused the record.
(2.) THE petitioner is a retail outlet dealer of Indian Oil Corporation. He is primarily aggrieved by the action of respondent-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, by which they have issued advertisement dated 6.8.2010 calling for applications for dealership in the vicinity of the outlet of the petitioner. Relying on the guidelines issued by the Indian Road Congress in the year 2009, it is submitted that a fresh dealership should not be given near the location of an existing dealer. THE guidelines have been filed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. From a bare perusal of the said guidelines, it does not appear that the same have been issued by a Government Authority. Similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in its judgement and order dated 29.7.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 43483 of 2010 (Mahtab Ahmad vs. Union of India and others) wherein it has been held that the said guidelines are not statutory in nature which can be enforced by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot insist that other petroleum companies should not open their retail outlets near the outlet of the petitioner. There should be healthy competition in the business. We do not find any good reason to issue direction to the respondents for not setting petrol pump in the vicinity of the retail outlet of the petitioner.
(3.) THIS writ petition is thus dismissed. No order as to costs.;