Per Virender Singh, J.— 1. Through the instant Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant (for short 'writ petitioner') assails the impugned judgment of learned Single Judge dated 23.04.2008, whereby her writ petition bearing OWP No. 374/2002 stands dismissed. 2. There is an interim stay of operation of the impugned judgment. 3. Mr. S. S. Chib Advocate appears for respondent No. 1, Mr. R. Koul for respondent No. 2, Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned senior counsel with Mr. Ravi Abrol for respondent No. 3 and Mr. D. S. Thakur, learned senior counsel with Mrs. Aruna Thakur for respondent No. 5. However, none appears for respondent no. 4. 4. Brief resume on factual aspect of the case:- 5. Government of India formulated a scheme namely "Operation Vijay" for rehabilitation of the families of the Kargil War Martyrs. Since the husband of the petitioner was killed during the Kargil War, she applied for LPG Distributorship under this Scheme as a permanent source of livelihood and was provided with LPG Agency of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (for short "BPCL") at Chadwal Morh, Tehsil Hiranagar (District Kathua). At the time of allotment of the Agency in question, there was already an extension counter of LPG being run by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (for short 'HPCL'). As per the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (for short "Ministry of Petroleum"), the said extension counter was required to be shut down and the customers, who were being covered through the said extension counter were to be transferred to the newly commissioned agency. Since this was not being done, the petitioner filed OWPNo. 277/2001 in this Court, which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 18.09.2001 directing the Oil Marketing Companies concerned to observe the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and directed the State Level Cordinator i.e. Indian Oil Corporation, J&K, Jammu-respondent No. 2 to see that the guidelines are adhered to. Pursuant to the said judgment, the extension counter of HPCL at Chadwal Morh was closed and the customers being fed by the extension counter were transferred to the Agency of petitioner. 6. HPCL, who was directed to close its extension counter after the lapse of some time, proposed to allot a fresh LPG Distributorship at Hiranagar, for which an advertisement notice came to be issued on 28.03.2002. 6. HPCL, who was directed to close its extension counter after the lapse of some time, proposed to allot a fresh LPG Distributorship at Hiranagar, for which an advertisement notice came to be issued on 28.03.2002. The petitioner questioned the said notification through the medium of OWP No. 374/2002 on the ground that since the Agency allotted to her was to operate within 15 kms radius and the opening of the proposed agency at Hiranagar was approximately 7 kms away from Chadwal Morh, it would render the LPG Agency of the petitioner unviable. 7. The petitioner primarily relied upon the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Petroleum, which were duly endorsed by the representatives of Oil Marketing Companies in its meeting held on 14.02.2000 and other meetings, which took place on 02.11.2000 and 16.11.2000, thus prayed for writ of prohibition restraining respondent No. 3 for issuing any fresh LPG connection with further prayer that all LPG connections issued by respondent Nos. 3 & 4 to the customers falling within the operation area of the petitioner be transferred to her Agency. 8. The writ petition was resisted by HPCL on the ground that it is sought to be built on the restriction of radius of 15 kms for allotment of LPG Distributorship, whereas the case of the petitioner is covered under different policy constituted by the Government for the families/dependent of Kargil Martyrs. It was further the case of HPCL that under marketing plan 1996-98, LPG Distributorship was already identified at Hiranagar, whereas allotment of Distributorship to the petitioner at Chadwal Morh, was made subsequently. 9. It needs to be mentioned here that subsequent to the advertisement notice issued by the HPCL, inviting applications for Hiranagar LPG distributorship, the selection process was initiated and respondent no. 5 was put at serial No. 1 being most eligible candidate. However, the distributorship could not be allotted in his favour because of the interim stay order passed by the learned writ court. Therefore, respondent no. 5 by laying motion sought its impleadment as party respondent which prayer was allowed by the learned Single Judge. Thereafter, he filed his separate reply to the writ petition. 10. The resistance projected by respondent No. 5 as reflected in his objections/reply is that the writ petition has been filed to enforce certain guidelines, challenge to which cannot be thrown in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Thereafter, he filed his separate reply to the writ petition. 10. The resistance projected by respondent No. 5 as reflected in his objections/reply is that the writ petition has been filed to enforce certain guidelines, challenge to which cannot be thrown in exercise of writ jurisdiction. It was further the case of respondent No. 5 that even otherwise, the guidelines providing for an operational area of 15 kms did not prohibit anywhere another Oil Company to appoint another Distributor within that area and that pursuant to the advertisement notice issued by HPCL dated 28.03.2002, respondent No. 5 responded to it and after facing the interview and satisfying other selection criteria, he was placed at serial No. 1 by the Selection Committee. 11. The learned writ court ultimately dismissed the writ petition holding that the petitioner cannot have an exclusive and absolute right to run the Agency of LPG as it is likely to create monopoly in the business particularly when the second Agency is being proposed at Kathua, which is 7 kms away from place where the petitioner is running her agency and that by efflux of time when 10 years have passed the population might have increased and need to provide more connections must have arisen. The petitioner being aggrieved of the said judgment/order has filed the instant Letters Patent Appeal. 12. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides, gone through the writ Court record and the other documents attached thereto. 13. Mr. Shukla submits that findings returned by the learned Single Judge that the guidelines and instructions issued by Ministry of Petroleum are not binding on the Oil Marketing Companies, are not correct in law. He contends that all Oil Marketing Companies are Public Sector Undertakings, which are under the Ministry of Petroleum and that LPG being the controlled product, the Government issues instructions and guidelines from time to time regulating the sale and distribution of LPG by Oil Marketing Companies. According to the learned counsel, even the proposal for new locations for opening of LPG Distributorship are approved by the Ministry concerned. The letter dated 14.02.2000, which is annexed as Annexure-B with the writ petition, was duly endorsed by the members of all Oil Marketing Companies including the representatives of HPCL, therefore, respondent No. 3 can not raise the plea that the guidelines issued by Ministry were not binding on it. The letter dated 14.02.2000, which is annexed as Annexure-B with the writ petition, was duly endorsed by the members of all Oil Marketing Companies including the representatives of HPCL, therefore, respondent No. 3 can not raise the plea that the guidelines issued by Ministry were not binding on it. According to the learned counsel, the learned Single Judge has not appreciated this aspect in its right perspective, rather committed an error while holding that guidelines of Ministry of Petroleum are not justifiable and cannot be enforced in the court of law. 14. Mr. Shukla then submits that the learned Singe Judge has not appreciated the fact that the location Hiranagar which was proposed in the marketing plan and duly approved by the Ministry of Petroleum was subsequently put up for dropping the same which fact was made available to the writ Court vide annexure-K, wherein there is a reference to the minutes of meetings of all Oil Marketing Companies on 02.11.2000 ar.d 16.11.2000, and it was decided by the Industries Members to resur-vey unviable locations. The locations, which were found unviable would be endorsed by the respective Area Manager/Regional Manager of the two Oil Companies, by forwarding to their respective head offices for taking up the issue with the Ministry concerned. Learned counsel submits that the Union of India being party did not refute this fact as no objection was filed by the respondent No. 1 and that respondent-HPCL had also not placed on record any document to controvert the said proposal, to which HPCL itself was also the signatory. That being the situation, no distributor could be allotted dealership for Hiranagar. This vital aspect has also not been considered by the learned Single Judge, the learned counsel so contends. 15. Mr. Shukla submits that the learned Single Judge did not appreciate the fact that the area of Distributorship was clearly defined in the guidelines issued by respondent No. 1, which were duly accepted and endorsed by all Oil Marketing Companies including HPCL, therefore, the issue of creating monopoly does not arise. The opening of the new agency by respondent No. 5 would definitely render the Agency of the petitioner unviable which was granted to her in lieu of sacrifice made by her husband while fighting with enemies in Kargil War. The opening of the new agency by respondent No. 5 would definitely render the Agency of the petitioner unviable which was granted to her in lieu of sacrifice made by her husband while fighting with enemies in Kargil War. The object of granting LPG agency was to provide permanent source of livelihood to the families of Kargil War Martyrs and it stands defeated. 16. To strengthen his submissions, Mr. Shukla has relied upon a Division Bench Judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case All India LPG Distributors Federation v. Union of India and another decided on 21st December, 2001 which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court also. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the Judgment and the orders of the Apex Court annexed as Annexures F & G with the writ court record. 17. Mr. Shukla also relies upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court handed down in case Rishi Kumar Barbwa v. State of J&K and ors., decided on 29-03-2011 (Photostat copy placed on record). 18. Repudiating the submissions advanced by Mr. Shukla, Mr. D.S.Thakur, learned Sr. Advocate, representing respondent No. 5, who was selected and placed at S.No. 1 in the process of selection for appointment of Distributor in the particular location 'Hiranagar' pursuant to the Advertisement Notice dated 28-03-2002 and subsequently impleaded as party-respondent before the learned Writ Court, while taking the lead, submitted that the writ petitioner has no cause at all for the relief sought herein, inasmuch as, no writ lies for enforcing the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Petroleum which purported to prescribe that there should not be a 2nd dealership for LPG etc. within the radius of 15 kilometers. According to him, in these circumstances, no right accrues to the petitioner to base her claim on the guidelines and get it enforced in the Court of law. 19. Mr. Thakur further submits that the Writ Court cannot go into the question as to whether a dealership should be opened or should not be opened which is exclusively within the domain of HPCL which is a Company registered under the Companies Act. 20. Joining the issue with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition, Mr. Thakur relies upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case S. Gopalan Nair v. K. Damodaran Nair and ors, reported as AIR 1959 Supreme Court 896. 21. 20. Joining the issue with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition, Mr. Thakur relies upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case S. Gopalan Nair v. K. Damodaran Nair and ors, reported as AIR 1959 Supreme Court 896. 21. On merits, Mr. Thakur submits that assuming any dealer is appointed overlapping in the area of existing dealer, such an appointment would not have the effect of violating any legal, fundamental or statutory right of that existing dealer. The guidelines do not prohibit any other oil company to appoint any distributor within that area or even the same company which has already appointed a distributor/dealer to run the LPG Agency. 22. According to learned Sr. Advocate, there are four major oil companies i. e HPCL, BPCL, QIC and IBP which are controlled by the Government of India and all these companies have their separate legal entities. All these companies took a collective decision with regard to marketing of their products with a view to have a planned growth of distribution of petroleum products and with a view to take care of existing and future demands in the market. In the market plan, viability of setting up the LPG distributorship of a particular area is also one of the considerations. This is how in one of the marketing plan prepared during 1996-98, 'Hiranagar' in District Kathua was identified as one such location where it was thought that LPG distributorship would be viable. 23. Mr. Thakur would contend that may be the writ petitioner was allotted the distributorship for location 'Chadwal Morn' being the widow of an Army Officer who died during Kargil Operation and based her claim on the guidelines issued by the Government of India which provide a distributorship being given covering area within a radius of 15 kilometers, did not at all extend any compromise that this particular rule would hold good for all the times to come or to create a monopoly of a particular distributor within that area of operation. He submits that idea of providing the area of 15 kms radius was with a view to ensure that oil companies provide their services over a longer geographical area instead of concentrating in providing the services in one area only. This would encourage the spreading of services over a larger area. He submits that idea of providing the area of 15 kms radius was with a view to ensure that oil companies provide their services over a longer geographical area instead of concentrating in providing the services in one area only. This would encourage the spreading of services over a larger area. In some cases this 15 kms radius rule would be wholly redundant where number of consumers are more or can increase with the efforts of distributor. 24. Learned counsel submits that in advertisement of March, 2002 for allotting another LPG dealership, as many as 44 other locations were also advertised where distributors of other locations were already appointed by the IOC and BPCL. Therefore on the point of viability of a particular location, the best judge is the company concerned, who has to allot the dealership. 25. Mr. Thakur then submits that the Judgments cited by Mr. Shukla are distinguishable on facts, and therefore, the writ petitioner cannot derive any benefit from the said Judgments. 26. Mr. Thakur lastly submits that it is respondent No. 5 only who is the real sufferer in this case, being already selected and not allotted LPG Agency at a particular site for the last more than 10 years. He is the prospective distributor of Hira Nagar location and could not start the LPG Agency because of the interim stay granted initially in the writ petition and then during the pendency of the instant appeal. Therefore, it deserves to be dismissed with costs. 27. Toeing the arguments of Mr. D.S. Thakur, learned Sr. Advocate, in principle, Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned Sr. Advocate appearing.for respondent HPCL submits that the marketing plan 1996-1998, on which, the writpetition is based underscores different policies, whereas the case of the petitioner is covered under a particular policy constituted by the Government for families/dependent of Kargil martyrs. The said plan got approval by the Ministry on 05-09-1997. Under the marketing plan 1996-98, LPG distributorship had already been identified at Hira Nagar, as such the subsequent allotment of distributorship to the petitioner at 'Chadwal Morh' is not in conformity with the marketing plan 1996-98. She cannot base her claim on the said marketing plan. 28. Mr. The said plan got approval by the Ministry on 05-09-1997. Under the marketing plan 1996-98, LPG distributorship had already been identified at Hira Nagar, as such the subsequent allotment of distributorship to the petitioner at 'Chadwal Morh' is not in conformity with the marketing plan 1996-98. She cannot base her claim on the said marketing plan. 28. Mr. Sethi would contend that the company has not given any illegal connection in the area of operation of the petitioner's distributorship and is bound by the directions and instructions which are given by the Union of India through Ministry of Petroleum from time to time. Therefore, the advertisement notice which has been issued by HPCL for appointment of LPG distributorship for Hiranagar is perfectly legal and no fault can be found with it. Therefore, the petitioner has no valid and legally sound basis to put forth her claim as asserted in the writ petition. 29. Learned counsel for the other respondents have virtually adopted the arguments advanced by two learned Senior Advocates representing respondents 3 and 5. 30. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the following question arises for our consideration: i) is the action of the respondent No. 3 in issuing the advertisement notice dated 28-03-2002 inviting dealership for proposed agency at Hiranagar is illegal and violative of the Article 14 of the Constitution, if so, what would be the effect thereof ?. 31. At the very outset, it needs to be mentioned here that the LPG distributorship has been allotted in favour of the petitioner under a particular scheme namely "Operation Vijay". The purpose for allotment of LPG distributorship/petrol pump to the widows of the Kargil martyrs was not motivated for providing financial security to such persons. The idea was to honour and respect the supreme sacrifices made by the martyrs for the nation. In other words, it was the gesture of warmth and gratitude towards the martyrs. 32. Under the aforesaid scheme, BPCL proposed to allot LPG distributorship for 'Chadwal Morh' in favour of the petitioner in terms of the letter dated 30th of October, 2000 (Annexure-A to the main writ petition). The said letter of intent was subject to certain terms and conditions. One of the condition is incorporated in 2.1 which reads: "Provisionally, it is intended that your area of operation will cover Chadwal Morh. The said letter of intent was subject to certain terms and conditions. One of the condition is incorporated in 2.1 which reads: "Provisionally, it is intended that your area of operation will cover Chadwal Morh. This is however, subject to change as may be necessary by the Corporation at a later date, even after the distributorship is commissioned. Further, from time to time, you may be required to take over some existing customers of other Distributors in your area of operation. Similarly, you may be required to surrender some customers to other distributors." 33. Since the petitioner has based her entire case primarily on the instructions of Ministry of Petroleum contained in the document No. SL/KKH/1400 dated 14th February 2000 of HO, LPG (Sales) Annexure B to the writ petition with the subject-coverage of villages within a radius of 15 kilometers under Urban/Rural and Rural class of market, giving guidelines after approving the marketing plan prescribing the parameters for rural market by including the adjoining area within a radius of 15 kilometers, for facility of reference, we reproduce the relevant instructions hereunder: "HO, LPG (SALES) SL/KKH/1400 14th February, 2000. Sub: Coverage of villages within a radius of 15 kms Under Urban/Rural and Rural class of market. Ministry, vide its letter dated 23.06.97 advised the broad guidelines to be followed for inclusion of locations in the Marketing Plan 1996-98. Accordingly, the LPG Marketing Plan 1996-98 was submitted to Ministry and Ministry vide its letter dated 05-09-97 approved the same. In the marketing plan 1996-98 and Supplementary Marketing Plan 1996-98 most of the locations classified as Urban/Rural and Rural were found feasible after inclusion of villages within a radius of 15 kms from the mentioned location. The following parameters were considered while formulating the above Marketing Plans. a) Rural area on the fringes of existing semi urban/urban Markets. b) Rural market having adequate potential for independent distributorship without embracing adjoining area. c) Rural market by including adjoining area within 15 kms radius. Accordingly, the distributorship under Urban/Rural and Rural should be given the area including the location and the villages within 15 kms radius. Presently, LOD are issued mentioning the location advertised only without mentioning the villages within a radius of 15 kms. c) Rural market by including adjoining area within 15 kms radius. Accordingly, the distributorship under Urban/Rural and Rural should be given the area including the location and the villages within 15 kms radius. Presently, LOD are issued mentioning the location advertised only without mentioning the villages within a radius of 15 kms. Oil Companies will identify the area of operation of a distributor under the above circumstances as the case may be either independently or in consultation with each other depending on the number of distributors planned for/existing in a market. The parameters for identifying the area of operation will be as under: 1. Urban/Rural location/market: While identifying the area of operation for extending the facilities to villages from urban locality, the Industry will identify the area to ensure that there is no multiplicity of Oil Companies/distributors in the same area. In other words, each Oil Company/distributor will have distinct area of operation covering various villages. 2. Rural Market: Under this, there can be two possibilities as below: 1. Rural location/market without embracing the adjoining villages and having adequate potential for independent distributorship. The distributor will be operating within the limit of Municipal town/BlockHQ/Mandal/PanchayatHQ/Boundary. 2. Rural distributorships embracing the adjoining area. The distributorship will be located in the main location, as advertised, with the area of operation covering villages up to a radius of 15 kms........." 34. Since Mr. Shukla has also laid much stress on minutes of Industry meetings held in IBP, Head office on 02-11-2002 and IOC Head office on 16-11-2002 with regard to the proposal to approve marketing plan location where members of all the Oil Companies namely BPCL, HPCL, IBP and IOC were present, we also refer to the relevant extract therefrom. Annexure L annexed to the writ petition is a document termed as 'Attachment' detailing proposed dropping of locations and under the head 'Attachment A', there is a reference to location Hira Nagar. It reads: "Hira Nagar in Kathua District is located 17 kms away from existing distributorship at Samba. In view of the policy of enlarging the area of Operation, Samba will develop the customers in Hira Nagar as well. The extension counter barely consumed 1200 cylinders per month and can go further to 1500 if a regular dealership is instituted. It reads: "Hira Nagar in Kathua District is located 17 kms away from existing distributorship at Samba. In view of the policy of enlarging the area of Operation, Samba will develop the customers in Hira Nagar as well. The extension counter barely consumed 1200 cylinders per month and can go further to 1500 if a regular dealership is instituted. Moreover, barely 7 kms away another dealership of Kargil misadventure has been awarded and is likely to be commissioned by BPC. It is therefore strongly suggested that the location needs to be dropped. Although HPC has advertised under open category in August, 2000, yet the applications have not been forwarded to DSB." 35. As Mr. Shukla has referred to communication 'Annexure D' to the writ petition between Director Marketing, Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and the Chairman/Managing Director, IOCL/BPCL/HPCL with regard to closure of extension counter in the area of newly commissioned distributors, we reproduce the said communication hereunder: "No.P-20012/65/2000 Government of India Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas Shastri Bhawan New Delhi, September 17, 2001 1. The Chairman, IOCL, Mumbai 2. The Chairman & Marketing Director, BPCL/HPCL, Mumbai. 3. The Chairman & Managing Director, T&P Co. Ltd. Kolkata. Sub: Closing of Extension Counters in the area of newly commissioned LPG Distributorships. Sir, 1. It has come to the notice of the Government that in many parts of the Country several old LPG distributors are still operating their extension counters in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorships and therefore the newly commissioned distributorships are finding difficulty in enrolling new customers resulting into making such new distributorships unviable. This anomaly needs to be removed immediately. Although, OMCs have been invited to close down such extension counters and transfer all the customers enrolled through these counters to the newly commissioned distributorships from time to time, it appears that these directions have not been followed strictly at the field level. 2. In view of above, it is advised that you may kindly look into the matter personally and ensure that all extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorships must be closed down immediately irrespective of the fact that same have been opened with the concurrence of the Management of concerned OMCs or otherwise. 2. In view of above, it is advised that you may kindly look into the matter personally and ensure that all extension counters which are operating in the trading areas of newly commissioned LPG distributorships must be closed down immediately irrespective of the fact that same have been opened with the concurrence of the Management of concerned OMCs or otherwise. After closing down the extension counters, customers served through these counters be transferred immediately to newly commissioned distributorships of the respective areas. 3. The above direction of Government may kindly be implemented immediately and a compliance report be sent to Ministry by October 15,2001. Further if after October 15,2001 any complaint of the operation of extension counter in the trading area of the new distributorships is received by the Ministry, SLC of concerned State and GM of the concerned OMC, will be responsible for the same and expose themselves for disciplinary action. Sd/-Director Marketing" 36. What is gathered from the aforesaid documents is that all the companies were focusing on viability norms. 37. In our view, one basic lacuna in the writ petition is staring at the petitioner, inasmuch as, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) who had allotted distributorship to the petitioner at Chadwal Morh is not aggrieved of the action of the HPCL in advertising distributorship for Hira Nagar. BPCL is not the writ petitioner. It has not been arrayed even as party-respondent by the petitioner so that the concerned company could put forth its stance before the learned Writ Court. Undoubtedly, this Company is also a party to all the minutes of meetings on which Mr. Shukla is laying lot of stress. This weakness in the construction of the writ petition, by itself makes it on a slippery footing. 38. Let us now examine the case on hand even on the guidelines/instructions issued by Ministry of Petroleum, which according to Mr. Shukla, are binding on the oil marketing companies being Public Sector Undertakings. This aspect is to be appreciated only with regard to the viability of opening the 2nd distributorship by another company within the radius of 15 kms. 39. What has been provided in the guidelines (Annexure B to the writ petition) is the maximum limit. In short, it means that 15 kms radius area is the maximum area only within which the LPG distributorship can function and make the supply to its consumers. 39. What has been provided in the guidelines (Annexure B to the writ petition) is the maximum limit. In short, it means that 15 kms radius area is the maximum area only within which the LPG distributorship can function and make the supply to its consumers. It is nowhere stated in these guidelines that within this radius, no other Gas Agency can function. 40. For proper understanding, we can put an instance. In the Jammu city itself, as we have been informed and not controverted by Mr. Shukla also, that there are many LPG distributorships within the radius of not more than 3 kilometers. Even certain Gas Agencies are at a distance of less than 500 meters from each other. 41. Another fact that needs to be noticed is that HPCL in its objections has taken a specific stand that in the cases of Kargil War Widows where the LPG distributorship is allotted to a family of Kargil martyr at Mishriwala by HPCL/another family of Kargil martyr has also been allotted LPG distributorship by Indian Oil Corporation at Akhnoor which is less than 15 kms radius. This fact is not controverted by the writ petitioner. During the course of arguments also, Mr. Shukla has not been able to controvert that aspect and instead made an attempt to bring his view point home, stating that may be in the aforesaid situation, both the LPG distributorship are catering to the needs of the customers, whereas in the present case if another distributorship is allowed to run, it would make the agency of the petitioner unviable. 42. We are not inclined to appreciate the arguments advanced by Mr. Shukla. If, for any reason, the writ petitioner has not been able to make sincere efforts to make her distributorship workable or failed to have good intake of the customers, which fault is attributable to the writ petitioner only, it cannot be a ground to put a restraint for allotting another LPG distributorship, that too, by different company. While allotting distributorship, numbers of factors are to be considered, in which, viability is certainly one of the main considerations. It is the specific case of the HPCL that viability of the distributorship is based on the estimated refill sale as per the norms of the LPG distributorship and the viability is bound to change with the passage of time. 43. It is the specific case of the HPCL that viability of the distributorship is based on the estimated refill sale as per the norms of the LPG distributorship and the viability is bound to change with the passage of time. 43. No doubt, at one stage, in the minutes of Industry meetings held in IBP HO on 02-11-2002 and IOC HO on 16-11-2002, members of all the oil marketing companies were present in which the LPG marketing plan was discussed wherein extension of operation of the area was also discussed and as per the document (Annex-ure-L annexed to the writ petition), while considering LPG distributorship at Hira Nagar, it was suggested that the location needs to be dropped. But it cannot be said that the said proposal will remain effective for all the times to come. The ground reality has changed considerably from the date of commissioning of the petitioner's distributorship which was allotted to her way back in the year 2000 and some decision taken immediately thereafter by the members of different oil companies with regard to the viability and the present situation which has undergone considerable change by efflux of time which factor, in fact, weighed with the learned Single Judge in not agreeing with the submissions of the writ petitioner and rightly so. 44. Viewed thus, we are not inclined to accept the contention of Mr. Shukla that the guidelines or the minutes of meetings on which he is banking upon heavily, would have the statutory force or flavour. Had that been the situation, BPCL who had allotted the LPG distributorship to the writ petitioner would have been the most aggrieved party to come forward basing its claim legally enforceable on the ground that the other company (HPCL) was violating the guidelines issued by respondent No. 1 Being that not the situation before us, in our considered view, the advertisement issued by HPCL dated 28-03-2002 and thereby selecting respondent No. 5 does not violate any legal, fundamental or statutory right of the existing dealer i. e. the writ petitioner herein. 45. The Judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case All India LPG Distributors Federation (Supra) relied upon by Mr. Shukla, in our considered view, does not put him to any advantageous position, inasmuch as, it was with regard to setting up of the extension counters. 45. The Judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case All India LPG Distributors Federation (Supra) relied upon by Mr. Shukla, in our considered view, does not put him to any advantageous position, inasmuch as, it was with regard to setting up of the extension counters. In the said case, instructions issued by Government of India vide its letters dated 17th of September, 2001 and 18th October, 2001, by which the Public Sector Oil Marketing Companies were advised to close down the extension counters set up by the dealers and transfer all the customers enrolled through these counters to the newly commissioned distributorship, were questioned by All India LPG Distributors Federation. Ultimately, the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court while testing those instructions on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution and the principles of natural justice held that the members of the petitioner-federation had been allotted distributorship for specific areas and therefore, the instructions issued by Union of India were not illegal or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Viewing the instructions on that touchstone, the writ petition filed by the petitioner-federation was ultimately dismissed and the said view was also upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. That is not the fact position of the present case. 46. It would not be out of place to mention here that at one stage when the petitioner filed OWP No. 277/2001 on the basis of certain guidelines and sought directions from the writ court, the same were duly complied witfl and the customers of the extension counter were duly transferred to the petitioner's distributorship. But that fact would not stand in the way of HPCL for having another LPG distributor at any subsequent stage. 47. The Judgment relied upon in case Rishi Kumar Barbwa (supra), in our considered view, would again be distinguishable on the facts of the present case. No doubt, it was with regard to certain guidelines issued for engagement of teaching guide under R-e-T Scheme, but altogether in the different context. Therefore, the ratio of the said judgment, would have no applicability to the facts of the case on hand. 48. We see the present case, yet from another angle. Respondent No. 5 was selected for the LPG distributorship for Hira Nagar way back in 2002 and till date no distributorship has been allotted. Therefore, the ratio of the said judgment, would have no applicability to the facts of the case on hand. 48. We see the present case, yet from another angle. Respondent No. 5 was selected for the LPG distributorship for Hira Nagar way back in 2002 and till date no distributorship has been allotted. By now long 10 years have gone and need to provide more connections would have certainly arisen. Respondent no. 5 is waiting for the start of his distributorship for all these years. In the present set of circumstances, it would not only be too harsh, but unjustifiable also, in not allowing respondent No. 3 (HPCL) to go ahead with the selection process pursuant to the advertisement notice dated 28-03-2002 for appointment of LPG distributorship for Hira Nagar (District Kathua), which is already lingering on for more than a decade. In our considered view, it would, rather, be in the interest of the consumers of LPG also, so as to avoid monopoly in the business by one particular LPG distributor. 49. The net result is that the appeal on hand deserves to be dismissed being devoid of any merit in it. Ordered accordingly. 50. Interim stay granted vide order dated 30-05-2008 stands vacated. Accordingly, CMP No. 45/2008 stands disposed of. 51. However, keeping in view the peculiar facts of the present case and the fact that the appeal is filed by war widow, we refrain from imposing any cost.