Judgment : Petitioner is an association of existing LPG distributors. In this writ petition, petitioner challenges notification issued by Bharat Petroleum Corporation (BPCL), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL), Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) published in the daily newspapers on 15.9.2013 calling for applications for enlistment of new LPG distributors in the entire state of Andhra Pradesh (Undivided). The notification calls for applications for enlistment as distributors at 499 locations. The procedure for selection, principle of reservation, eligibility criteria are all governed by the brochure of guidelines for selection on regular LPG distributors brought about by three oil companies in May, 2013. On the ground that parameters prescribed by the Government of India for enlistment of the distributorship has not been observed, causing great hardship and suffering to the existing distributors, this writ petition is instituted. 2. The impugned notification seeks to appoint LPG distributors in 499 locations in undivided State of Andhra Pradesh. Out of 499, 440 locations were against restructuring, 48 were newly identified markets and 11 were against the terminated distributorships. Petitioner challenges the said notification on the ground that if these 499 distributors are appointed, it would adversely affect the existing distributors in carrying on the business. These locations are in addition to the locations identified under RGGLV Project. 3. Heard Sri S.R.Ashok, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner association and Sri B. Mayur Reddy for respondents 3 to 7 and Mrs Nanda for Union of India- respondent no.8. 4. Sri S.R.Ashok, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that there is wholesale breach of the policy evolved by the respondent company regarding provision of distributors and identification of locations in present notification process. He has relied on the minutes of meeting dated 3.4.2013 presided over by the Defence Minister, Union of India which has laid down the guidelines for entrustment of LPG dealership. These norms are based on the population in particular locality. According to the norms, a standard distributor is expected to have a turnover of distribution of cylinders to an extent of 22000. Learned senior counsel therefore contended that while determining the number of dealerships in any area where already a distribution agency exists, unless the said distribution agency reaches 125 % on the target fixed, there cannot be induction of new dealership. Learned senior counsel therefore contended that while determining the number of dealerships in any area where already a distribution agency exists, unless the said distribution agency reaches 125 % on the target fixed, there cannot be induction of new dealership. Once a policy is formulated by the Government of India and the respondent oil companies, they are bound by the said policy and violation of the policy vitiates the entire exercise. 5. Learned senior counsel submitted that in several distribution locations listed out in the notification existing dealers have far less consumer base than the target determined by the oil companies and, therefore, the present exercise of awarding more dealerships, is wholly illegal and in clear violation of their own policy. The distribution capacity is on the basis of the number of cylinders distributed in a month but not the volume of customers. In support of his contention, learned senior counsel circulated a list of out-lets in various places including Hyderabad referring to the customer base as well as turnover in various cities. Learned senior counsel submitted that none of these towns and cities have fulfilled the parameters of attainment of 125 % sales. He further contended that all the oil companies have together, advertised for new retail dealers, whereas each oil company have separate dealers and in each of the oil company, the requirement is nil or limited in various places as per the norms prescribed. Cumulative exercise was not done by taking into consideration the sales of the retail outlets in a particular town irrespective of the company distributorship. 6. The problem of dealers is compounded on account of change in the policy with reference to portability of gas cylinder. This enables the consumer to shift his connection to any other dealer or any other oil company. This portability in practice can result in upsetting the statistics as with reference to the dealership. A dealer who is now undertaking the distribution to 20000 or 25000 consumers can over-night come down to less than 15000 if the existing consumers decide to migrate to any other dealer or company. No safeguards are provided to take care of such contingencies and expose the dealers to unexpected hardships. 7. A dealer who is now undertaking the distribution to 20000 or 25000 consumers can over-night come down to less than 15000 if the existing consumers decide to migrate to any other dealer or company. No safeguards are provided to take care of such contingencies and expose the dealers to unexpected hardships. 7. He further contended that the present notification is based on the sales turnover achieved in the year 2011-2012, whereas there is drastic fall in the sales turnover during the year 2012-13 on account of introduction of the linkage with Aadhar card. 8. Thus, while resorting to recruit more dealers it is necessary for the oil companies to first formulate their policy on various aspects as contended above, apart from the fact of furnishing the methodology adopted by the oil companies in identifying the dealerships and increasing the number of dealers to very high figure. 9. Counter affidavit deposed by Mr. Madhukar Bhikaji Ingole, Chief Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Secunderabad dated 11.12.2013 is adopted by all the respondent oil companies. 10. On behalf of the Oil Companies, learned senior counsel Sri D.V. Sitarama Murthy, made his submissions. 11. Learned senior counsel raised preliminary objection on maintainability of writ petition in view of dismissal of earlier writ petition on the same issues and said decision operates as res-judicata. He contended that the same contentions were urged in the earlier writ petition filed by petitioner association and writ petitions filed by individual dealers in “ANDHRA PRADESH LPG DEALERS ASSOCIATION Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GASES AND OTHERS [ 2009 (1) ALT 268 ]”. Considering all aspects on the issues agitated by the petitioner association, this Court dismissed the writ petition and the same has become final. Only flavor is different in the present writ petition, but the tenor and relief claimed is same. This Court also held that the petitioner association has no locus-standi to challenge the notification calling for fresh enrolment as dealers. Thus, present writ petition is hit by principle of res judicata and liable to be dismissed. 12. Learned senior counsel submitted that while determining the number of outlets, each oil company has undertaken detailed exercise; they have also complied with the Government of India notification with reference to taking note of 10% of the additional membership enrolment while determining the requirement. 12. Learned senior counsel submitted that while determining the number of outlets, each oil company has undertaken detailed exercise; they have also complied with the Government of India notification with reference to taking note of 10% of the additional membership enrolment while determining the requirement. He further contended that the statement shown in para 4 of the counter affidavit is after taking note of 10 % of the additional enrolment. He further contended that there is strict compliance of the policy and formula envisaged in the policy is fully complied. 13. Learned senior counsel submitted that writ Court has limited jurisdiction with reference to policy matters; companies are entitled to frame policy and change the policy. As long as policy is uniformly applied and there are strict guidelines in enforcing the policy, the jurisdiction of this Court in exercise of power of judicial review is very limited. He further contended that the business interest of the existing dealers is protected; no injury is caused to the existing dealers. He further contended that the petitioners’ objective is to prevent enrolment of new dealers as it would invite more competition. Petitioner wants to continue monopoly in distribution of LPG cylinders. 14. The ceiling of ensuring 75 % customer base in the existing dealership is maintained. Only when existing dealer crosses 75 % ceiling limit, a new dealership is proposed. Competition and more number of dealers only ensure effective distribution of cylinders and better service to the customer and achieving the objective of customer satisfaction. Competition will ensure prompt, courteous and after sales service. The recent policy of the Government in ensuring portability of the membership also encourages good service from the existing dealer or new dealer. The primary objective of the oil companies is to provide effective on time delivery of the cylinders so that the customers do not suffer and the customer satisfaction is primary concern of the oil companies. The concern of the oil companies is not how much profit dealers are making but how best to serve customers. Existing or prospective dealers are aware that the market dynamics alone would play in ensuring profits and dealer cannot expect to have profits always and it depends on various factors. It is a service sector, profits depend on better customer satisfaction. Existing or prospective dealers are aware that the market dynamics alone would play in ensuring profits and dealer cannot expect to have profits always and it depends on various factors. It is a service sector, profits depend on better customer satisfaction. However proper care is taken to ensure that the dealer does not suffer on account of low customer base and therefore ceiling limit is prescribed and good commission is provided to the dealers per cylinder delivered by them. He therefore contended that it cannot be said that the dealer would suffer on account of increase in the number of dealerships. 15. Learned senior counsel pointed out that at the time of awarding of dealership the dealers have agreed, as incorporated in the agreement that they would not oppose encouragement of new dealerships and that they would not oppose distribution of the existing customer base to the new dealer. Thus, having agreed and incorporated in the terms of agreement, it is not open to the petitioner association to challenge the notification calling for fresh dealerships. The members of the petitioner association are bound by the said terms and if they are not agreeable to the said terms, it is always open to them to terminate their dealership. 16. Learned senior counsel relied on following decisions: a) DARYAO AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF U.P. [ AIR 1961 SC 1457 = 1962 1 SCR 574 ] b) GULABCHAND CHHOTALAL PARIKH Vs STATE OF GUJARAT [ AIR 1965 SC 1153 ] c) STATE OF UP Vs NAWAB HUSSAIN [ (1977) 2 SCC 806 ] d) RAMCHANDRA DAGDU SONAVANE (DIED BY LRs) Vs VITHU HIRA MAHAR [(2009 ) 10 SCC 273] e) STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs HYDERABAD POTTERIES PRIVATE LIMITED [ (2010) 5 SCC 382 ]. 17. In reply learned senior counsel Sri S.R. Ashok contended that the writ petition is maintainable and the earlier decision on the writ petition filed by the petitioner association does not operate as res-judicata. There was no challenge to the policy with reference to increase in the number of retail outlets and other aspects under criteria heading. The cause of action giving rise to the present writ petition is the notification which is under challenge and the said notification was not challenged in the earlier writ petition. There was no challenge to the policy with reference to increase in the number of retail outlets and other aspects under criteria heading. The cause of action giving rise to the present writ petition is the notification which is under challenge and the said notification was not challenged in the earlier writ petition. In support of this contention learned senior counsel places reliance on decision of the Supreme Court in MADHVI AMMA BHAWANI AMMA AND OTHERS Vs. KUNJIKUTTY PILLAI MEENAKSHI PILLAI AND OTHERS [ (2000) 6 SCC 301 ]. 18. The petitioner association earlier filed W.P.No.22372 of 2007. This writ petition and batch of other writ petitions were considered by a learned single Judge of this Court in ANDHRA PRADESH LPG DEALERS ASSOCIATION (cited supra). 19. To appreciate the contentions of the petitioner and respondents on the maintainability of the writ petition, it is appropriate to notice few facts, as assessed by this Court in the above decision. A notification was issued to grant dealerships at the notified locations in addition to and to complement the existing dealerships. The principal and even singular challenge against the said notification was that identification of these locations for grant of new LPG dealerships was in contravention of the guidelines on restructuring of LPG dealerships and also at variance with the professed policy of the oil companies. They contended that existing distributors were unable to cater to the ceiling limit prescribed and appointment of fresh distributors would render the viability factor even more critical. The Oil companies specifically pleaded, as pleaded herein also, that the distributorship agreement between the respective oil companies and the individual distributor incorporate clear and unambiguous clauses enabling the oil companies concerned unilateral decision or authority to appoint additional distributors at the same territory as is specific for an existing distributor, a right to abridge or alter the area of operation allocated unilaterally. It is pleaded that mutually agreed position disables any expectation of existing distributors to the claims presented in those writ petitions. 20. On consideration of rival contentions, this Court held as under: “19. It is pleaded that mutually agreed position disables any expectation of existing distributors to the claims presented in those writ petitions. 20. On consideration of rival contentions, this Court held as under: “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 in an existing dealer”. ….. “ the Respondents-Public sector Oil Companies are the best judges of their business policy choices and the managerial expertise inherent in the respondent Oil Companies” (para 21). “The claims in the writ petitions underscore an assumption that the economic interest of existing distributors is the exclusive obligation of the respondents-Oil Companies. Such assumption is fundamentally flawed”. ……. “The economic benefits derived by the petitioners-distributors is a mere corollary an ancillary consequence of the respondent-public 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 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.” 21. Serious objections on maintainability of the writ petitions was also raised. This Court upheld the contention of the lack of locus standi on the part of this petitioner and other petitioners. Serious objections on maintainability of the writ petitions was also raised. This Court upheld the contention of the lack of locus standi on the part of this petitioner and other petitioners. This Court held as under: “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.” 22. In RAMCHANDRA DAGDU SONAVANE (cited supra), Supreme Court held as under: “43. The principle of res judicata comes into play when by judgment and order a decision of a particular issue is implicit in it, that is, it must be deemed to have been necessarily decided by implications even then the principle of res judicata on that issue is directly applicable. When any matter which might and ought to have been made a ground of defence or attack in a former proceeding but was not so made, then such a matter in the eye of the law, to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to bring about finality in it, is deemed to have been constructively in issue and, therefore, is taken as decided. (See Workmen v. CochinPortTrust2.)” 23. In DARYAO AND OTHERS (cited supra), Supreme Court held as under: “9. But, is the rule of res judicata merely a technical rule or is it based on high public policy? If the rule of res judicata itself embodies a principle of public policy which in turn is an essential part of the rule of law then the objection that the rule cannot be invoked where fundamental rights are in question may lose much of its validity. Now, the rule of res judicata as indicated in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has no doubt some technical aspects, for instance the rule of constructive res judicata may be said to be technical; but the basis on which the said rule rests is founded on considerations of public policy. It is in the interest of the public at large that a finality should attach to the binding decisions pronounced by Courts of competent jurisdiction, and it is also in the public interest that individuals should not be vexed twice over with the same kind of litigation. It is in the interest of the public at large that a finality should attach to the binding decisions pronounced by Courts of competent jurisdiction, and it is also in the public interest that individuals should not be vexed twice over with the same kind of litigation. If these two principles form the foundation of the general rule of res judicata they cannot be treated as irrelevant or inadmissible even in dealing with fundamental rights in petitions filed under Article 32.” 24. In GULABCHAND CHHOTALAL PARIKH (cited supra) Supreme Court held as under: “ …….. We therefore, hold that, on the general principal of res judicata, the decision of the High Court on a writ petition under Article 226 on the merits on a matter after contest will operate as res judicata in a subsequent regular suit between the same parties with respect to the same matter.” 25. In MADHVI AMMA BHAWANI AMMA AND OTHERS relied by petitioner, Supreme Court held, “7…….. This shows that the sphere of res judicata as enshrined in Section 11 CPC is not exhaustive, it is ever growing. One such example of its growth is exhibited by the incorporation of Explanation VIII in Section 11 by means of the amending Act in 1976. The submissions made are broadly under two heads: firstly under the broad and general principle of res judicata in view of Explanation VIII and secondly, whether in proceedings for the grant of succession certificate, any adjudication or issue decided therein would operate as res judicata to suit proceedings. In order to apply the general principle of res judicata the court must first find, whether an issue in a subsequent suit, was directly and substantially in issue in the earlier suit or proceedings, was it between the same parties, and was it decided by such court. Thus there should be an issue raised and decided, not merely any finding on any incidental question for reaching such a decision. So if no such issue is raised and if on any other issue, incidentally any finding is recorded it would not come within the periphery of the principle of res judicata.” 26. In that case, OP was filed to grant succession certificate. Suit for declaration, partition and recovery of possession was also filed. The Suit was decreed in favor of plaintiff and OP was also allowed. Appellate court allowed the appeals. In that case, OP was filed to grant succession certificate. Suit for declaration, partition and recovery of possession was also filed. The Suit was decreed in favor of plaintiff and OP was also allowed. Appellate court allowed the appeals. Only one Second Appeal was preferred and no further Appeal was preferred against first appellate court judgment arising out of proceedings granting succession. In the Second Appeal, respondent raised the please that since no appeal was preferred against order of first appellate court in proceedings arising out of grant of succession, the said order of first appellate court operates as res judicata. The said contention was upheld by the second appellate court. Supreme Court held that any adjudication made under Part X of Indian Succession Act does not bar the same question being raised between the same parties in any subsequent suit or proceeding. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the High Court. 27. In this writ petition, the contentions urged on behalf of petitioner are same in content and substance as raised in the earlier Writ Petition, only texture is different. The earlier decision has become final as petitioner did not prefer appeal against the said decision The notification calling for enlistment of new dealers is new but grounds of challenge are same. In the earlier Writ Petition, the petitioner having invited findings on all issues concerning enlistment of new dealers in the existing territories where its members are operating, it is not open to it to agitate same issues again when a new notification is issued. The decision relied on by the learned senior counsel for petitioner does not come to his rescue. The present writ petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable in view of the decision of this court in “Andhra Pradesh LPG Dealers Association”, referred to above, on all the issues agitated herein. 28. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.