ORDER Heard Sri N. Subba Reddy, the learned senior counsel instructed by Sri K. Ananda Rao, the learned counsel for some of the petitioners; Mis P. Venugopal, M.V. Rajaram, Srinivas Dammalapati, K. Bheema Rao, V. Venugopala Rao, L. Prabhakar Reddy, K. Vasudeva Reddy and P. Shiv Kumar, the learned counsel for other petitioners in this batch of Writ Petitions. Mis. P.V. Sanjay Kumar, the learned counsel for Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Indian Oil Corporation Limited; O. Manohar Reddy, the learned counsel for Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited; A. Rajashekar Reddy, the learned Assistant Solicitor General for Union of India wherever impleaded; the learned Government Pleaders for Revenue and for Civil Supplies for the official respondents and other learned counsel Mis. K. Venkateshwarlu, Deepak Bhattacharjee, P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, B. Sreehari, B. Narayana Reddy, P.V. Sanjeeva Rao, Arun Yalagiri, Ckhayanam Ravindranath, K. Kishor Kumar Reddy, A. Rajitha, Vijaya Bhaskar Moola, T.v. Ramana Rao, and Challari Nageswara Rao for some of the party respondents impleaded in some of the writ petitions. 2. The several writ petitions are by existing Liquefied Petroleum Gas (for short 'LPG') Distributors accredited either to the Indian Oil Corporation, the Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Limited or the Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited (for short 'the Oil Companies'). The challenge is to a notification dated 01-10-2007 (the impugned notification) jointly issued by the Oil Companies calling for applications for appointment as LPG Distributors at several locations in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Under this notification, (84) new Dealerships by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited; (46) by the Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited and (75) by the Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Limited have been notified at different locations in the State. The notification proposes grant of Dealerships at the notified locations in addition and to complement the existing dealerships. None of the Oil Companies have initiated action for termination of the existing Dealerships of any of the petitioners. The petitioners do not canvass any such conduct of the Oil Companies. 3. The notification proposes grant of Dealerships at the notified locations in addition and to complement the existing dealerships. None of the Oil Companies have initiated action for termination of the existing Dealerships of any of the petitioners. The petitioners do not canvass any such conduct of the Oil Companies. 3. The principal and even singular challenge to the impugned notification is on the ground that the identification of these locations for grant of new LPG Dealerships is in contravention of the guidelines on restructuring of LPG Dealerships issued on 14-02-2000 and is also at variance with the professed policy of the Oil Companies as set out in a counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Limited (and equally applicable to the other Oil Companies) in an earlier Writ Petition No. 1042 of 2005. As a nuance of this contention, the petitioners submit that the Oil Companies have varied the earlier professed policy and arbitrarily. As a consequence, the petitioners are adversely impacted with the civil consequences and the viability of their business under the existing Dealership agreements is subverted. On behalf of some of the petitioners, it is also contended that the grant of new dealerships consequent on the impugned notification will adversely impact the ceiling limits imposed on existing dealers by the respective Oil Companies to which the several petitioners are accredited. 4. Since the grounds of challenge to the impugned notification in all the writ petitions are substantially similar, suffice it to consider the fact matrix in W.P.No. 23663 of 2007 which is illustrative of the other writ petitions as well. The relevant facts in W.P.No. 23663 of 2007: 5. The petitioner on its application was granted a Letter of Intent for Dealership of LPG (Indian Gas) on 01-06-2004. Under the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the Indian Oil Corporation, the business is to be localized at Medikonduru with a (15) kilometre radius specified as the area of operation. A Memorandum of Agreement was entered into between the petitioner and a representative of the Indian Oil Corporation on 22-02-2005 whereunder the aforementioned radius of area of operation is specified. A Memorandum of Agreement was entered into between the petitioner and a representative of the Indian Oil Corporation on 22-02-2005 whereunder the aforementioned radius of area of operation is specified. However sub-clauses (ii), (iii) and (iv) of Clause-I of the agreement enable the Indian Oil Corporation, irrespective and without reference to the petitioner-licensee to (a) appoint one or more additional distributors in the same territory (referred to in the specification of the territory clause) as also additional distributor or distributors, to sell the commodity in the same territory, without any objection entertained from the licensee and without any right in the petitioner-licensee to claim any over-riding remuneration, commission or allowance in the circumstances; (b) entitling the Oil Company and on its sole discretion to reduce, restrict, modify or alter the area of the distributorship territory and specifying further that the decision of the Oil Company concerned in this regard would be final and binding on the licensee; and (c) inhering in the Oil Company the discretion and without the consent of the petitioner-licensee to enlarge, reduce, increase or modify the area specified to the petitioner in Clause-I of the agreement, as may from time to time be decided by the Oil Company in question, while obligating the licensee to confine its operations to the area/territory specified in the agreement. 6. To effectuate the agreement with the Oil Company, the petitioner obtained a license from the Joint Collector concerned under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980 (for short 'the Control Order, 1980'). It is not in dispute that the petitioner has a current and operative for license under the Control Order, 1980. It is also not in dispute that its agreement with the Oil Company is extant and operational. 7. The petitioner challenges the impugned notification on the ground that as a consequence of the grant of 'fresh' dealerships pursuant to the impugned notification, the 'area of operation' specified in the agreement dated 22-02-2005 with the Indian Oil Corporation Limited i.e., 'Medikonduru with a 15 KM radius as area of operation' would be trenched since the rural areas of Sattenapally (which is one of the areas notified for new dealership to be granted by the Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Limited) fall within the 15 kilometres radius of Medikonduru. The petitioner also contends that the respondents have neither consulted nor taken the petitioner into confidence about the revised policy on the basis of which the impugned notification is issued. The petitioner also asserts that even existing distributors are unable to cater to the ceiling limit prescribed and in the circumstances appointment of fresh distributors would render the viability factor even more critical. These are the generic objections on behalf of the other petitioners as well. 8. On behalf of the Oil Companies, it is contended that the writ petitions are not maintainable since these writ petitions constitute a stratagem by existing distributors to perpetuate their monopoly and to stifle competition. On this aspect, the Oil Companies contend that the writ petitioners have no locus standi to challenge or seek to interdict grant of new distributorships. On behalf of the Oil Companies, the learned counsel and in particular Sri P.V. Sanjay Kumar (app8aring for the Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Limited and the Indian Oil Corporation Limited) contend that on merits too the petitioners are not entitled to relief. It is contended that the petitioners have no legal or statutory right or a non- derogable specific territory of operation nor are the petitioners entitled qua a legal right or even a legitimate and enforceable expectation to a minimum guaranteed business through the Oil Company to which they are accredited. In view of mutually agreed conditions spelt out in subclauses (ii), (Hi) and (iv) of Clause-1 of the agreements between the several petitioners and the respective Oil Companies, the learned counsel for the Oil Companies contend that neither the location for which the petitioners were granted the distributorship nor the geo-specific territory within which the petitioners are entitled to pursue their business under the agreement nor the volume of business is inflexible or assured and may be restricted, expanded or modified by the Oil Company without the consent of or reference to the distributor and such alteration or modification is binding on the distributor. Such being the mutually agreed terms of the written agreement between the parties, the petitioners cannot legitimately claim an exclusive right to distribute LPG within the locus specified in the agreement, is also the contention on behalf of the Oil Companies. Such being the mutually agreed terms of the written agreement between the parties, the petitioners cannot legitimately claim an exclusive right to distribute LPG within the locus specified in the agreement, is also the contention on behalf of the Oil Companies. The Oil Companies further contend that the impugned notification is issued after a survey and evaluation of several parameters as have been set out in paragraph No. 7 of the counter affidavit dated 10-04-2008 (filed by the Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Limited) in W.P.No. 23663 of 2007. 9. In view of the rival contentions and the adversarial positions on the relevant issues, the following aspects fall for determination. (a) Whether the impugned notification calling for applications for grant of distributorships for LPG, in the (205) locations in the State of Andhra Pradesh is valid? (b) Whether the petitioners have locus standi to maintain the writ petitions? 10. Normally, the aspect of locus standi It ought to be considered in the first instance as it is a threshold issue and if the Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioners have no locus standi that conclusion would be determinative and the Court need not embark on the merits of the dispute/lis. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties however, it appears that the current jurisprudential discourse on the locus standi of the petitioners (alleged to be rival traders) is not so clear as to warrant a conclusive determination on this aspect satisfactorily as may avoid determination on the merits of the issue altogether. Therefore, this Court considers it appropriate to deal with the merits of the petitioners' challenge to the impugned notification and thereafter consider the challenge regarding maintainability, since that is also an issue presented for adjudication. Issue (a): Whether the impugned notification dated 01-10-007 is valid? 11. Earlier, some of the writ petitioners herein including the petitioner in W.P. No. 23663 of 2007, filed W.P. No. 9787 of 2005 and batch (the petitioner in W.P. No. 23663 of 2007 had filed W.P.No. 9792 of 2005). This batch of writ petitions was disposed of on 23-01-2006 by the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court. 12. The petitioners in the above batch of writ petitions were either an association of established LPG Distributors or individual LPG Distributors. This batch of writ petitions was disposed of on 23-01-2006 by the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court. 12. The petitioners in the above batch of writ petitions were either an association of established LPG Distributors or individual LPG Distributors. After the appointment of the petitioners as distributors, the Oil Companies, pursuant to a notification appointed new distributors, some with exclusive territory specified and others with a territorial operation overlapping the territories allotted to existing distributors (petitioners). By the judgment dated 23-01-2006, the batch of writ petitions were disposed of. Some writ petitions were disposed of with a direction and others dismissed. This Court observed that where there were exclusive areas of operation allocated to the newly commissioned distributors, the respective Oil Companies should take necessary steps to prevent the established distributors from operating their business (of supplying LPG) within the exclusive areas of operation granted to the newly commissioned distributors. In cases where newly appointed distributors had overlapping areas of operation with existing dealers this Court held that the allocation to the existing dealers should not be disturbed and the new dealers should explore fresh avenues of business though in overlapping areas with the existing dealers. 13. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Limited in the earlier batch of writ petitions referred to supra must be considered in the context of lis presented therein. Some of the writ petitioners had pleaded (in the earlier W.Ps) that as the concerned Oil Companies had fixed a ceiling limit on the business of the dealers, grant of new dealerships had the impact of curtailing their business qua such ceiling limits fixed. In response thereto, in paragraph No. 3 of the counter affidavit dated 22-11-2005 filed in W.P. No. 9787 of 2005 and batch it was pleaded that there was earlier a ceiling limit fixed on refill sales depending on the type and class of the market, but this policy was reviewed from time to time in order to improve the viability and working of existing LPG Distributorships. The emphasis was on ensuring improved customer service and distributor's infrastructure for reaching the viability level during the regulated regime. During the regulatory regime new connections were not granted across the country. The opening of new distributorship was also controlled up to 1999 in view of the then constraints such as product availability and limited infrastructure. The emphasis was on ensuring improved customer service and distributor's infrastructure for reaching the viability level during the regulated regime. During the regulatory regime new connections were not granted across the country. The opening of new distributorship was also controlled up to 1999 in view of the then constraints such as product availability and limited infrastructure. After the regulated regime yielded space to liberalization, the ceiling limits specified lost relevance due to the opening up of the business and LPG connections were granted on demand in the markets throughout the country and in the interest of the consumers at large. In paragraph No. 3 of this counter the HPCL also refers to a circular issued in the year 2000 specifying the ceiling limits for various locations. The HPCL also pleaded that the concept of ceiling limit continued to have relevance only for the purpose of viability norms in terms of the circular dated 26-02-2000 but had no relevance for other purposes. Earlier, the concept of ceiling limit was relatable to the economic viability of the distributorships when it was restricted and controlled. After the regulation was eschewed and a liberalized regime substituted the regulated regime and free release of connections across the country are being granted, the viability of distributorship had increased tremendously and therefore the reference to ceiling limits ceased to be relevant. The relevant pleadings in the earlier counter affidavit by the HPCL are summarized above, since the petitioners herein laid great stress on the policy of the Oil Companies qua the averments in that counter affidavit. 14. As is apparent from a true and fair construction of the generic content of the earlier counter affidavit, the Oil Companies had asserted even in the earlier batch of writ petitions that the ceiling limits had relevance only during the controlled regime when the number of connections were restricted and no new connections were being granted. After liberalization and the opening up of market and grant of fresh connections almost on call, ceiling limits have no relevance, except by way of comprising one amongst the several viability norms and depending upon the geo specific location in the market. 15. After liberalization and the opening up of market and grant of fresh connections almost on call, ceiling limits have no relevance, except by way of comprising one amongst the several viability norms and depending upon the geo specific location in the market. 15. The HPCL has filed counter affidavits in the several writ petitions, but the defence to the averments on merits in the various writ petitions is common and hence the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the HPCL and W.P. No. 23663 of 2007 is considered as illustrative of the generic defence of the Oil Companies to the challenges in these writ petitions. 16. In response to the contention that the impugned notification is arbitrary and contrary to the earlier guidelines with regard to the restructuring of the LPG Distributorships, the HPCL counter affidavit dated 10-04-2008 at paragraph NO.7 pleads as under: "A location for establishment of a new Dealership/Distributorship is identified only if it is found economically viable/ feasible. Such viability/feasibility is assessed by a joint assessment/ inspection to ascertain the market potential of the said location, by the industry members drawn from the 3 individual Oil Companies, as per the guidelines stipulated in this regard by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India. Normally, the following are the parameters taken into account while considering the feasibility/viability of new locations viz., the type of market i.e., as to whether it is a monopoly location, the population as per the last census, the compounded growth per annum thereon, the growth of the market as projected by the population above and below the poverty line, existing penetration level, purchasing power of customers, urban/rural nature of the market, industrialization in the area, potential for growth based on improved agricultural prospects owning to enhanced irrigational facilities etc., industrial and commercial activity in the area and the general need for improvement of customer service by making available the petroleum product in close proximity to the customer. All the above parameters are given due weightage and consideration by the Industry while deciding upon new locations for establishment of distributorships. It is relevant to state that LPG is an essential commodity and accordingly, the Government has the power to regulate the marketing of LPG." 17. All the above parameters are given due weightage and consideration by the Industry while deciding upon new locations for establishment of distributorships. It is relevant to state that LPG is an essential commodity and accordingly, the Government has the power to regulate the marketing of LPG." 17. It is further pleaded that all the 205 locations enumerated in the impugned notification are jointly by the three public sector Oil Companies and on the basis of their concurrence on an industry level consideration and with the approval of Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India. The Oil Companies specifically plead that the distributorship agreement between the respective Oil Companies and the individual distributor incorporate clear and unambiguous clauses enabling the Oil Company concerned a unilateral decisional authority (without the consent or information to the distributor), to appoint additional distributors in the same territory as is specified for an existing distributor; a right to abridge, or alter the area of operation allocated unilaterally and without a corresponding right to the dealer to expand his territory beyond what is specified in the distributorship agreement. It is the specific defence of the Oil Companies that such clearly and mutually agreed position disables any expectation by existing distributors to the claims presented in these writ petitions. It is the clear case of the Oil Companies that the petitioners cannot lawfully contend that as a consequence of the impugned notification and the grant of new distributorships pursuant thereto, they suffer any legally ad judicable injury. 18. The learned counsel appearing for the several petitioners do not demur from the above interpretation of sub-clauses (ii), (iii) and (iv) of Clause 1 of the agreement between the petitioner (in W.P.No. 23663 of 2007 with the Indian Oil Corporation) nor do the learned counsel for the petitioners demur from or contest the assertion of the Oil Companies that identical or substantially similar clauses exist in every agreement between the several distributors and the different Oil Companies to whom they are accredited under distinct distributorship agreements. 19. 19. As the petitioners are all parties to a contract which clearly inheres a discretion that enables the Oil Companies to enlarge or restrict the territories specified in the several agreements, without reference to the petitioners and without any claim by the petitioners for restitution of any loss suffered on account of such alteration, the petitioners are seen to have no legal right or a scintilla of legitimate expectation to seek interdiction of the action by the Oil Companies (by issuing the impugned notification) for appointment of new distributors even where the new distributorship is in respect of a territory overlapping with or trenching into the area of operation specified to an existing dealer. 20. In view of the clear and categorical assertion in paragraph No.3 (of the earlier counter affidavit dated 22-11-2007 of the HPCL in W.P.No. 14202 of 2005), it is clear that the refill sales limits specified in the earlier guidelines spelt out in a circular dated 26-06-200 have lost relevance after the regulated regime was substituted by the liberal regime, of granting new connections and thereby enabling unrestricted expansion of business. In paragraph No. 7 of the present counter affidavit by the HPCL (in W.P.No. 23663 of 2007), it is clearly pleaded that a range of complex and interlocking parameters were considered by the public sector oil companies for identifying the notified locations for establishment of distributorships. 21. Paragraph No. 7 of the counter affidavit is extracted supra and it is clear from the averments in this paragraph which are not contested, that a rational exercise has preceded the identification of new locations for establishment of distributorships. The respondents-Public Sector Oil Companies are the best judges of their business policy choices and the managerial expertise inherent in the respondents Oil Companies, in the context of a competitive business environment. This is a sufficient safeguard and in the context of the several complex parameters that need to be considered to buffer arbitrariness in the decision making process. The petitioners do not allege any personal malice against any officer or representative of the Oil Companies. 22. There is another aspect of the matter which is also relevant in considering whether the petitioners can be heard to canvass the correctness of the respondents-Oil Companies decision the identification of new locations for grant of distributorships. The petitioners do not allege any personal malice against any officer or representative of the Oil Companies. 22. There is another aspect of the matter which is also relevant in considering whether the petitioners can be heard to canvass the correctness of the respondents-Oil Companies decision the identification of new locations for grant of distributorships. The claims in the writ petitions underscore an assumption that the economic interests of existing distributors is the exclusive obligation of the respondents-Oil Companies. Such assumption is fundamentally flawed. As pointed out by the respondents-Public Sector Oil Companies and even in the context of the current constraints to the availability, LPG continues to be an essential and: scarce commodity. The primary social obligation of the respondents-Public Sector Oil Companies (which are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India) is to ensure equitable, timely and efficient supply of this basic commodity, to the consumers. The economic benefits derived by the petitioners-distributors is a mere corollary an ancillary consequence of the respondentpublic sector Oil Companies discharging the fundamental and primary social obligation, of ensuring efficient, timely and adequate supply of the essential commodity LPG, to the consumers. Where the Oil Companies generate a novated policy for establishment 104 of new distributorships for enabling efficient supply of LPG to the consumers, such legitimate policy choice must prevail over any incidental or collateral prejudice that the petitioners might suffer. In any event, the only demonstrable if potential grievance of the petitioners is a measure of competition. Such impact even if there be is marginal must be subordinated to the larger public concerns which are catered to by the establishment of new distributorships, qua the impugned notification. 23. In the considered view of this Court, the impugned notification dated 01-10-2007 identifying 205 locations for grant of distributorships does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This issue is accordingly answered. Issue (b) - Whether the writ petitions are maintainable? 24. Sri P.V. Sanjay Kumar, the learned counsel has strenuously contended that these writ petitions by rival traders and presented with a view to smother competition are not maintainable. Reliance for this contention is placed on a catena of authorities. 25. This issue is accordingly answered. Issue (b) - Whether the writ petitions are maintainable? 24. Sri P.V. Sanjay Kumar, the learned counsel has strenuously contended that these writ petitions by rival traders and presented with a view to smother competition are not maintainable. Reliance for this contention is placed on a catena of authorities. 25. In N.R. and F Mills v. N. T.G. and Brothers', the Supreme Court (three Judges Bench per Shah, J) considered the issue of the locus standi of a rival trader to impeach the grant of fresh license or permission that increases the competition in the petitioners' area of trade. In paragraph NO.10 (of the reported), dealing with the contention of the respondents that a permission granted to the appellants to locate a new rice mill within the vicinity of the respondents' rice mill was in contravention of Section 8 (3) (c) of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958, the Apex Court held that the provisions of Section 8 are merely regulatory and if not complied with, the appellants may probably be exposed to a penalty, but the competitors in the business cannot seek to prevent the appellants from exercising their right to carry on business because of the default, nor can the rice mill of the appellants be regarded as a new rice mill. The Court clarified that a person cannot claim, independently of any restriction imposed by a law referable to Article 19 (6) of the Constitution that any other person shall not carry on business or trade so as to affect his trade or business, adversely. This decision was referred to with approval and followed by the Supreme Court (Four Judges Bench) J.M. Desai v. Roshan Kumar. 26. A learned Division Bench of this Court in Rajappa Kawati v. G. Hanumantha Rae? relied on the decision in J.M. Desai to hold that the writ petitioners had no focus standi to contest an approved scheme of Nationalization of mofussil routes alone without nationalizing town services. 27. In another unreported judgment of a learned single Judge dated 22-12-2000, in W.P.No. 5959 of 1998 the writ petition was rejected, inter alia holding that the dealer of a petroleum filling station has no focus standi to question the notification issued by the Indian Oil Corporation inviting applications from interested persons for establishing another outlet. 27. In another unreported judgment of a learned single Judge dated 22-12-2000, in W.P.No. 5959 of 1998 the writ petition was rejected, inter alia holding that the dealer of a petroleum filling station has no focus standi to question the notification issued by the Indian Oil Corporation inviting applications from interested persons for establishing another outlet. In this judgment, apart from the focus standi issue, the Court also held, following the decision in J. Raghupathi v. State of A.P. ( AIR 1998 SC 1681 ) that the guidelines issued by the Indian Oil Corporation are not justiciable. A rival trader has no focus standi to impeach the competition evolving in the trade is a theme which substrates another judgment by a learned single Judge in Coastal Papers Ltd. v. Government of India". Another learned single Judge in R. Malia Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh reiterated the principle that the petitioner therein had no locus to challenge an order restoring licence to a rival trader. Additionally in this judgment (R. Malia Reddy's case) (5 supra) the fact that the trade in liquor was re extra commercium, was pointed out. 28. At apparent variance with the above line of cases are two decisions both by the Supreme Court. In M.S. Jayaraj v. Commr. of Excise, on facts the appellant before the Supreme Court was a hotelier with a liquor license doing business in a specific territory. The party respondent was a bidder at an auction for grant of license for vending foreign liquor for a notified territory. After obtaining such license, the respondent failed to identify a suitable premises, within the notified area. He therefore requested the Excise authorities to permit change of location and was permitted to locate his shop in a non-notified area within proximity of the appellant's place of business. The appellant unsuccessfully challenged the change of location granted (in favour of the respondent) before a learned single Judge of the Kerala High Court, but succeeded in appeal. A learned Division Bench of High Court rejected the objection raised by the respondents to the locus of the appellant and quashed the permission granted by the Excise authorities. The appellant unsuccessfully challenged the change of location granted (in favour of the respondent) before a learned single Judge of the Kerala High Court, but succeeded in appeal. A learned Division Bench of High Court rejected the objection raised by the respondents to the locus of the appellant and quashed the permission granted by the Excise authorities. Despite noticing and referring to the earlier decisions in Nagar Rice and Flour Mills v. N. Teekappa Gowda and brothers (1970) 1 SCC 575 ) and Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar (1976) 1 SCC 671 ), the Supreme Court in M.S. Jayaraj's case held that even though the respondents before it could be said to be a rival trader, for that reason alone his claim cannot be rejected. The Apex Court took note of the evolution and liberalization of the hitherto strict rules of standing and in further view of the fact that the order of the Excise Commissioner was passed in violation of law, held that it was not a case where the challenge to the order of Excise Authorities should be thrown out solely on the ground of locus standi as that would permit an illegal order to remain operative on the sole ground that the person who filed the writ petition has strictly no locus standi. 29. In Sai Chalchitra v. Commr. the appellant before the Supreme Court had filed a writ petition assailing an order passed by the Commissioner setting aside an order passed by the District Magistrate canceling the license given to the third respondent to run a video parlor. The writ petitioner's grievance was that the licensed premises of the third respondent's Video Parlor was situated within 350 meters of his own theater and therefore no license could have been granted to the third respondent as that was in violation of the rules and was also affecting adversely the businesses of the appellant in view of the proximity of the third respondent's business premises to its own. A learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition on the singular ground of the locus of the petitioner. On appeal the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the High Curt had clearly erred in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of locus standi. A learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition on the singular ground of the locus of the petitioner. On appeal the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the High Curt had clearly erred in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of locus standi. The Supreme Court held that the appellant being in the same trade as the third respondent had a right to seek cancellation of the license granted to the third respondent on the ground that it is in violation' of the applicable Act and the rules thereunder. 30. Sri P.V. Sanjay Kumar, the learned standing counsel for the HPCL and lac would contend that the decisions of the Supreme Court in M.S. Jayaraj (6 supra) and Sai Chalchitra7 do not constitute operative and binding precedents in view of the fact that these judgments, one by two Judges Benches of the Supreme Court while the decisions in N.R. and Flour Mills (1 supra) and J.M. Desai (2 supra) are by larger Benches of three and four Judges respectively. 31. In view of the availability of a surfeit of binding authority often presenting an apparently incoherent state of principle in several areas, jurimetrics is relied on increasingly to identify the applicable binding precedent but that is not always a dispositive idex to identify the binding principle. The apparently incoherent state of principles by the several judgments may be comprehended if seen as a quantum evolution of law. It must be noticed that M.S. Jayaraj (6 supra) specifically considered and referred to the earlier two judgments in N.R. and F. Mills (1 supra) and J.M. Desai (2 supra) and yet held that a rival trader does have a locus standi where the grant of a license is in contravention of the statutory rules. In Sai Chalchitra (7 supra) though no reference was made to any earlier authority, the conclusion and exposition of principle was identical to that in M.S. Jairaj (6 supra). The concept of locus standi has also undergone a transformation since the initial years, with the decision in SP. Gupta v. President of Indicf3 marking a landmark shift on the aspect of locus standi. The earlier strict standards of locus were relaxed to a measure, in recognition of the evolution of public law principles. 32. The concept of locus standi has also undergone a transformation since the initial years, with the decision in SP. Gupta v. President of Indicf3 marking a landmark shift on the aspect of locus standi. The earlier strict standards of locus were relaxed to a measure, in recognition of the evolution of public law principles. 32. At present in the state of the law as illustrated by the judgments in N.R. and F. Mills (1 supra) and J.M. Desai (2 supra) at one end of the spectrum, and M.S. Jayaraj (6 supra) and Sai Chalchitra (7 supra) at the other, this Court is unable to unequivocally conclude that a rival trader has in all circumstances and regardless of the nature of public injury posited by the challenged action of a public authority, no locus standi to maintain a writ petition. There may be, in the complexity of a dynamic society governed by rule of law values, a writ petition seeking judicial review which illustrates a grossly pejorative impact on public interest or presents a case of subversion of non derogable norms of constitutional governance, by a public authority. Scrutiny of such a conduct may not be eschewed except at the impermissible cost of jettisoning the constitutional role 0 this Court as the sentinel on the qui vive. Locus standi principles in the considered view of this Court must therefore be employed with due regard to the nature of the challenge; whether the interest presented is purely personal to the petitioners or involves a laiger component, of public interest concerns which prejudicially impact the society at large; and other such relevant considerations, germane to public law adjudication. 33. In the case on hand however the petitioners are seen to have (as analyzed in issue (a) supra) no legal right or even a legitimate expectation to interdict the notification dated 01-10-2007 jointly issued by the three respondent-Oil Companies. The entire trajectory of the petitioners' challenge is directed to preserving some sort of a monopoly status with regard to the business of distribution of LPG within a specific territory flexibly specified in the distinct agreements entered into by the Oil Companies with individual petitioners. Therefore, these cases squarely fall within the locus standi doctrine as spelt out in N.R and F. Mills (1 supra) and J.M. Desai (2) supra. Therefore, these cases squarely fall within the locus standi doctrine as spelt out in N.R and F. Mills (1 supra) and J.M. Desai (2) supra. On issue (b), this Court hold that the writ petitioners have no locus standi to maintain the writ petitions for seeking the reliefs as sought. 34. On the aforesaid analysis, the writ petitions beseech no interference and are accordingly dismissed. All the interim orders granted in the several writ petitions stand dissolved. In the circumstances however, there shall be no order as to costs.