JUDGMENT : B.S. Chauhan, C.J. - This writ petition has been filed as a PIL for issuing derection to the State of Orissa for formulating the guidelines/norms for setting up of retail outlets along the National Highways, State Highways, Major District Roads and other District Roads in the State of Orissa. 2. Petitioner is an Association of Petroleum Dealers and has filed this petition in public interest for laying down the Rules statutory in nature and for strict adherence/ observance thereof as the public at large would be benefited by it. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner's association is interested in the safety and welfare of the people at large and it is not seeking any direction that no retail outlet shall be established. Therefore, it has filed a petition issuing direction to the State of Orissa to formulate statutory provisions or at least guidelines analogous to the guidelines framed by the Union of India from time to time fixing the distance etc. between two petrol pumps depending upon the nature of the highway or width of the roads. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has opposed the petition contending that in case this Court provides any guidelines it would amount to legislation and in case Court directs the State authorities to make the Rules/guidelines it would amount to direct to legislate. Both the Courses are not available as the Court can neither legislate nor can direct to legislate in a particular manner. So far the existing norms issued by the Union of India are concerned, the same are to be observed strictly. 5. In the counter affidavit it has been stated by the opposite partics-authorities that in lage number of cases, where the guidelines issued by the Central Government has not been complied with and when the grievance raised, by any person, it has been examined and restrained. In some cases where persons are not satisfied, they had also approached the Courts and appropriate directions have been issued, 6. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. In Mallikarjuna Rao and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, the Apex Court has held that Writ Court, in exercise of its power under Article 226, has no power even indirectly require the Executive to exercise its law making power. 7. In Mallikarjuna Rao and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, the Apex Court has held that Writ Court, in exercise of its power under Article 226, has no power even indirectly require the Executive to exercise its law making power. The Court observed that it is neither legal nor proper for the High Court to issue direction or advisory sermons to the Executive in respect of the sphere which IS exclusively within the domain of the Executive under the Constitution. The power under Article 309 of the Constitution to frame rules is the legislative power this power under the Constitution has to be exercised by the president or the Governor of a State, the case may be. The Courts cannot usurp the functions assigned to the Executive under the Constitution and cannot even indirectly require the Executive to exercise its law making power in any manner. The Courts cannot assume to itself a supervisory role over the rule making power of the Executive under Article 309 of the Constitution. 8. While deciding the said case, the Hon'ble Court placed reliance on a large number of judgment, particularly Narinder Chand Hem Raj and Others Vs. Lt. Governor, Administrator, Union Territory, Himachal Pradesh and Others, . 9. In State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. A Parent of a Student of Medical College, Simla and Others the Supreme Court deprecated the practice adopted by the Courts to issue directions to the legislature to enact a legislation to meet a particular situation and opined as under: ...The direction given by the Division Bench was really nothing short of an indirect attempt to compel the State Government to initiate legislation with a view to curbing the evil of ragging, for otherwise it is difficult to see why, after the clear and categorical statement by the chief Secretary on behalf of the State Government that the Government will introduce legislation if found necessary and so advised, the Division Bench should have proceeded to again give the same direction. This the Division Bench was clearly not entitled to do, It IS entirely a matter for the executive branch of the Government to decided whether or not to introduce any particular legislation 10. In Asif Hameed and others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under: While doing so, the Court must remain within its self-imposed limits. In Asif Hameed and others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under: While doing so, the Court must remain within its self-imposed limits. The Court sits in judgment on the action of a coordinate branch of the Government. While exercising power of judicial review of administrative action, the Court is not an Appellate Authority. The Constitution does not permit the to direct or advise the Executive in matter of policy or to sermonize qua any matter which under the Constitution lies within the sphere of Legislature or Executive. 11. In Union of India and another Vs. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal, the Apex Court similarly observed. It is not the duty of the Court either to enlarge the scope of the legislation.....The Court cannot rewrite, recast or reframe the legislation for the very good reason that it has no power to legislation. The power to legislate has not been conferred on the Court. 12. Similarly in Ajaib Singh Vs. The Sirhind Co-Operative Marketing Cum-Processing Service Society Limited and Another the Supreme Court held that court cannot fix a period of limitation, if not fixed by the legislature, as "the Courts are admittedly interpret the law and do not make." The Court cannot interpret the statutory provision in such a manner "which would amounts to legislation intentionally left over by the legislature. 13. A similar view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the Union of India (UOI) Vs. Association for Democratic Reforms and Another observing that the Court cannot issue to the legislature for amending the Act or Rules. It is for the Parliament to amend the Act or Rules. 14. In V.K. Sood Vs. Secretary, Civil Aviation and others the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: Thus, it would be clear that, in exercise of the rule-making power, the President or authorised person is entitled to prescribe method of recruitment, qualifications, both educational as well as technical, for appointment or conditions of service to an office or a post under the State. The Rules, thus, having been made in exercise of the powers under proviso (2) to Article 309 of the Constitution, being statutory, cannot be impeached on the ground that authorities have prescribed tailor made qualifications to suit the stated individual..... Suffice to state that it is settled law that no motives can be attributed to the legislature in making law. The Rules, thus, having been made in exercise of the powers under proviso (2) to Article 309 of the Constitution, being statutory, cannot be impeached on the ground that authorities have prescribed tailor made qualifications to suit the stated individual..... Suffice to state that it is settled law that no motives can be attributed to the legislature in making law. The Rules prescribe qualification for eligibility and the suitability of Appellant would be tested by the Union Public Service Commission.....Moreover, it is for the rule-making authority or for the legislature to regulate the method of recruitment, prescribe qualifications etc. It is open to the President or the authorised person to undertake such exercise and that necessary test should be conducted by the U.P.S.C. before giving certificates to them. It is not the province of the Court to trench into and prescribe qualifications in particular when matters are of technical nature. 15. In District Mining Officer and Others Vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. and Another the Supreme Court held that function of the Court is only to expound the law and not to legislate. 16. Similarly in Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, the Supreme Court held that Court cannot direct the legislature to enact a particular law for the reason that under the constitutional scheme the Parliament exercises sovereign power to enact law and no outside power or authority can issue a particular piece of legislation. 17. Similar view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs. A.R. Zakki and others, ; and A.K. Roy v. Union of India, 1982 SC 710 18. In Union of India (UOI) Vs. Prakash P. Hinduja and Another, the Supreme Court held that if the Court issues a direction which amounts to legislation and is not complied with by the State, it cannot be held that the State has committed the Contempt of Court for the reason that the order passed by the Court was without Jurisdiction and it has no competence to Issue a direction amounting to legislation. 19. Thus, it IS very clear that the Court has a very limited role and in exercise of that, it is not open to have judicial legislation. 19. Thus, it IS very clear that the Court has a very limited role and in exercise of that, it is not open to have judicial legislation. Neither the Court call legislate, nor it has any competence to issue directions to the legislature to enact the law in a particular manner. 20. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as explained above, it is not possible for the Court to give direction, as sought for by the Petitioner. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. B.N. Mahapatra, J. 21. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed