JUDGMENT Satyabrata Sinha, J. : The petitioner who is a retail outlet dealer has filed this application claiming, inter alia, the following reliefs:- "(a) a Writ of Certiorari or in the nature thereof upon the Respondents to certify and transmit the entire records relating to this case so that a conscionable justice may be rendered in directing the Respondent Authorities to act in accordance with law with regard to settling up of a Petrol Pump as per the established rules and industrial norms and also the norms of marketing; (b) a Writ of Prohibition or in the nature thereof restraining the Respondents from allowing the Respondent No. 11 to set up his Petrol Pump at Plot No. 3700 of Mouza Amta, Under Khatian No. 626 J. L. No. 143 P. S. Amta in the District of Howrah; (c) a Writ of Mandamus or in the nature thereof commanding the Respondent Authorities to act in accordance with law with regard to setting up of a Petrol Pump as per the established rules and industrial norms and also the norms of marketing and not to allow any person including the Private Respondent being the Respondent No. 11 herein set up his Petrol Pump violating the established rule of Law". 2. The petitioner is a 'B' site outlet dealer appointed by Indian Oil Corporation-the respondent No.3 herein. Admittedly the respondent no.2 issued a notice inviting tender on 26.10.95 for appointment of Retail Outlet Dealer in respect of a place known as Betaibander which is within Anchal Noapara, Amta Block-2. The respondent No. 11 was selected for the aforementioned purpose. However, he had no land in Betaibander. He on 2.8.96 purchased a land bearing plot No. 3700 measuring 21 decimals within Amta-1 which does not come within the Gram Panchayat Noapara, Amta Block-2. The petitioner contended that Amta-1 having been included in the local schedule as a B-class market, no retail outlet in any 'D' class market could be opened within a distance of 15 K.M. from the exacting retail outlet alone the National/State highway. Admittedly the location of retail outlet of Oil Companies are selected by the representatives of all Oil Companies. Detailed feasibility reports are prepared and examined by them. Admittedly the location of retail outlet of Oil Companies are selected by the representatives of all Oil Companies. Detailed feasibility reports are prepared and examined by them. The location which have been set up for a retail outlet are drawn up on the basis of the approval of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gases upon considering the representations of the concerned respondents. 3. Mr. Bhattacharrya, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that keeping in view the fact that the Government of India had allotted Amta-1 to Indian Oil Corporation and Amta-II to Hindusthan Petroleum, the letter could not have directed allotment of the outlet dealership to the respondents No. 11 in Amta-1 area. It was further submitted that the change of place or site had not been approved by the Single Level Co-ordinator and, thus, allotment of the site in question by Hindusthan Petroleum contravenes all norms, rules and decisions taken by the State Level Co-ordinator. The stand of Mr. Bhattacharyya has been supported by Mr. Banerjee, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Indian Oil Corporation. The learned Counsel submitted a guideline showing volume/distance norms for setting up of retail outlet has been adopted by all the Government Undertaking Oil Companies, namely Indian Oil, Hindusthan Petroleum, I.B.P. and B.P. In terms of the said policy decisions, 'D' class market is in respect of the retail outlet of National/State High Way and admittedly no outlet should be allowed to be opened within 15 K.M. alone the National/State High Way from the existing Retail outlet unless the average combined sale is over 80 ills. per month. In case, average sale exceeds 80 Kls. per month additional outlet is justified provided the minimum expected sale during the second year of operation is as under: "Lone HSD -- 50 Kls. per month. MS 5 Kls per month Combined MS/HSD -- HSD 50 Kls per month" 4. The Indian Oil Corporation in its affidavit-in-opposition clearly stated that upon receipt of Government of India's approval, Betaibander is within the jurisdiction of Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation whereas Amta-1 is within the jurisdiction of Indian Oil Corporation. The learned counsel has also drawn my attention to a circular letter of Ministry of Petroleum and Chemical dt. 7.4.90, from a perusal whereof it appears that in case of non-availability of site, Oil Companies could develop the minimum distance within 2 KM. The learned counsel has also drawn my attention to a circular letter of Ministry of Petroleum and Chemical dt. 7.4.90, from a perusal whereof it appears that in case of non-availability of site, Oil Companies could develop the minimum distance within 2 KM. of either side of advertised location and, thus, the site could not have been shifted altogether to a different location, save and except for a distance of 2 KM. It has been accepted that in the event the respondent No. 11 is allowed to open its retail outletship the petitioner's business, who is an existing dealer of ICC Ltd., shall be seriously affected. It has further been contended that I.O.C. has a commercial interest in the petitioner and, thus, it would also suffer immensely unless the impugned allotment in favour of the respondent No. 11 by the respondent No.3 is struck down. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 and respondent No. 11, on the other hand, submitted that the writ petition having been filed by a rival trader, the same should not be entertained. It is submitted that in the notice inviting tender the place, town and area having been mentioned as Betaibander, retail outlet could be commissioned within the vicinity of radius of 2/3 Kms. from the area mentioned in the advertisement keeping in view the availability of land, public safety, intersection or roads, traffic pattern, customer convenience and commercial viability. It is further stated that Betaibander is a small village and respondent No. 11 purchased a piece of land on Amta-Betaibander Road, which is about 11/2 Kms. from the location advertised and falls within Amta Block, Uluberia. It is further stated that current monthly average sale of the petitioner's petrol pump is 20 Kls, of petrol (Motor Spirit) and 277 Kls. of diesel which are far more than the quantities specified in Volume/Distance Norms for setting up retail traders. It has further been stated that the writ application is also against the social objective policy of the Government of India to rehabilitate the ex-defence personnel. The learned counsels contend that there exists no policy or guideline about the distance between two Petrol Pumps. 6. It has further been stated that the writ application is also against the social objective policy of the Government of India to rehabilitate the ex-defence personnel. The learned counsels contend that there exists no policy or guideline about the distance between two Petrol Pumps. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents No. 11 has also placed before the court an unreported decision of Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2401 of 1994 (Mahaswar Prasad Singh vs. The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Ors.) disposed of on 21.12.1994. 7. As indicated hereinbefore, all parties agree that there exists a policy decision and the respondents No. 2 and 3 being the Government Oil Companies are bound thereby. 8. It appears from the supplementary affidavit that distance from Bagnan-Amta Road to Betaibander via Amta Bridge is about 2.9 K.M. approximately and is under Highway. It is unfortunate that in violation of a directive issued by the Supreme Court of India to the effect that the Public Sector Undertaking should not fight between themselves and should get their disputes resolved amicably and/or through arbitration, the respondents No.2 and 3 at daggers drawn in this case. There is no dispute with regard to the fact of the matter. This court is in this application concerned with questions of law, which are (a) whether the parties are bound by the policy decisions; and (2) whether the respondent No.2 could grant retail dealership to the respondent No. 11 in violation of its own notice inviting tender. 9. So far as the first question is concerned, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that if a policy decision has been taken and that too by the four Government Oil Companies, they should be bound thereby and any dispute between the said companies as regard the interpretation of the said policy decision and the rights and obligations of the parties thereunder should be resolved by State Level Co-ordinator. The respondents no. 2 and 3 are 'States' within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution of India. The respondents no. 2 and 3 are 'States' within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution of India. They cannot make any deviation or departure from the policy decision and must act within the four corners thereof and, thus, I am of the opinion that a direction should be given to the respondent No.3 to refer the dispute to the State Level Co-ordinator of the State of West Bengal so that the disputes and difference may be solved amicably and mutually without affecting the economic interest either of the parties concerned. 10. So far as the question No.2 is concerned, the answer thereto must be rendered in negative. Respondent No.3 having issued notice inviting tender, was bound by the conditions laid down therein. Any major deviation or departure therefrom which includes charge of site to a different block would be violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India as the other persons who had lands at Amta-I could have taken part in the tender; had it been known to them that the respondent No.3 would consider allotment of retail outlet dealership to any person having land in Amta-I Block. 11. In Dahadaya Krishi Uniyan Samity Ltd. vs. Union of India, reported in 1997 (1) CLJ 419, this court upon taking into consideration various decisions held that they cannot be any deviation or departure in relation to the essential conditions of a notice inviting tender as the same would be violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. The said judgment was passed on the basis that the persons who had land within the area where the site is sought to be shifted, could have also submitted their tenders. In that case the Indian Oil Corporation itself had made a departure from the aforementioned policy decision upon which it not strongly relied upon. It is also pertinent to mention that in Sri Ardhendu Manna vs. The Union of India & Ors., [W.P. No. 4431 (W) of 1997] where an existing retail dealer questioned the action taken by the Indian Oil Corporation in connection with the aforementioned case in Dahadaya Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 1997 (1) CLJ 419. Indian Oil Corporation contended that such guidelines are not enforceable. This court cannot but deprecate the contradictory stands taken by the same company in different litigations. Indian Oil Corporation contended that such guidelines are not enforceable. This court cannot but deprecate the contradictory stands taken by the same company in different litigations. The question is no longer res integra in view of a recent decision of the Apex Court in Dutta Associates (P) Ltd. vs. Indo Merchantile (P) Ltd. and Ors. reported in 1997 (1) SCC 53 wherein it has clearly been held that parties should confine themselves within the terms and conditions mentioned in the notive inviting tender. 12. In view of my findings aforementioned I am of the view that this case cannot be thrown out on the ground that it has been filed by a business rival inasmuch as noticed hereinbefore it is in truth and substance has become a dispute between two Government Companies supporting the case of their own allottees. The unreported decision of the Patna High Court has no application in the instant case as in this case this court is not concerned with the selection of a candidate by the Oil Selection Board. 13. For the reasons aforementioned this application is disposed of with the direction upon the respondent No.3 not to give effect to the impugned decision of granting retail outlet dealership to respondent No.4 and with a further direction upon the respondent No.2 to refer the dispute of shifting of site to the State Level Co-ordinator, State of West Bengal, which authority is requested to pass an appropriate order and if possible, lay down a firm guideline which would bind all the concerned parties but in the facts and circumstances of this case there will be no order as to costs. Application disposed of with direction.