1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.5232 OF 2008. Sau.Savita Vishwasrao Shinde. ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents. ... Mr.S.T.Ghute, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.M.Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for the State. Mrs.M.A.Kulkarni, advocate holding for Mr.A.M.Kulkarni, advocate for the Respondent No.4 Caveator. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 17.06.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner runs a petrol pump/diesel outlet granted to her by M/s Essar 2 Oil Ltd.,Mumbai at land Gat No.250 on Sanja Road, Osmanabad. The Respondent No.4 has been granted another outlet by M/s I.B.P. Co. Ltd., on other side of the road at a distance of 38.50 meters from the petrol/diesel outlet of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner objected grant of No Objection Certificate in favour of the Respondent No.4. Her objection petition was dismissed and NOC was granted. She preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed. The Appellate Authority held that there was no jurisdiction available to entertain the appeal in view of Rule 154(2) of the Petroleum Rules, 1976. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per the norms under the Circular of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highway, the location of the petrol pump must be at a distance of 100 meters from the intersection with the roads of carriage way width less than 5.3 meters. He would submit that the outlet of the Respondent No.4 does not keep such a distance as required under the Government Circular and, therefore, NOC should not have been granted. 3 4. It is pertinent to note that the advertisement dated 19.10.2005 was issued by I.B.P.Co. Ltd. before the petitioner was granted the permission to run her petrol pump. The site was clarified in the advertisement as one on State Highway No.67 between 177 - 179 Kms. The Respondent No.4 belongs to NT and was eligible to apply. Xerox copy of the map at p-19 appended with the report of the Executive Officer of PWD dated 25.2.2008 shows that the petrol pumps are not exactly opposite to each other but are on either side of the road at a distance of 38.50 meters from each other. The petitioner has no locus-standi to challenge the grant of NOC to the Respondent No.4 when the policy decision is taken by the concerned authorities. Assuming that certain norms are envisaged in the Government Circular, yet, same can not be treated as part of the Rules and mandate of the Law. The petitioner is rival trader. No legal right is available to the petitioner to challenge the grant of NOC. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Respondent No.4 that now the petrol pump of the Respondent No.4 is functional. Obviously, mere 4 grant of NOC need not be set aside so as to turn hands of the clock in the manner the petitioner so desires. No fundamental right of the petitioner is violated nor any statutory right is available to her. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp523208