JUDGMENT : P.N. Ravindran, J. 1. These appeals arise from the judgment delivered by the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No.16865 of 2014. By the said judgment, delivered on 27.03.2015, the learned single Judge set aside Ext.P9 letter dated 06.02.2014 sent by the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, to the Marketing Directors of three public sector oil marketing companies in India namely Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. The learned single Judge also quashed Ext.P8 letter dated 18.02.2014 sent by the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas to the President of the first petitioner federation, notwithstanding the absence of a prayer in that regard and directed the respondents in the writ petition to reconsider the matter, after affording the petitioners an opportunity of being heard, in the light of what has been stated in Ext.P7 judgment. The Union of India as well as the three public sector oil marketing companies have, aggrieved thereby, filed these writ appeals. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 2. Way back in the year 2010, existing petroleum dealers in the State of Kerala filed W.P.(C) No.1016 of 2010 and connected cases in this court, challenging the steps taken by the three public sector oil marketing companies to establish new retail outlets in the State of Kerala. It was their contention that the three public sector oil marketing companies have invited applications for setting up new retail outlets without any regard to the feasibility or potential of the area, which in turn would affect their returns. After considering the rival contentions, a learned single Judge of this court dismissed the writ petitions by Ext.P3 judgment delivered on 23.05.2011 holding that the petitioners have no enforceable right. The learned single Judge, however, proceed to observe in paragraph No.31 of Ext.P3 judgment as follows: 31. However, before parting with the cases, this Court cannot but observe, that the setting up of new retail outlets throughout the country was always a subject matter of grievance/dispute among the parties concerned. This is evident from the contents of Ext. P10 Minutes of the meeting (filed along with the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner in W.P. (c) 37417 of 2010) stated as chaired by the Minister for Petroleum and Natural Gases, Government of India on 18.09.2010. This is evident from the contents of Ext. P10 Minutes of the meeting (filed along with the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner in W.P. (c) 37417 of 2010) stated as chaired by the Minister for Petroleum and Natural Gases, Government of India on 18.09.2010. The said Minutes reveal that, it was decided to set up a Committee under the chairmanship of the Joint Secretary (Marketing), Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gases and comprising of Directors of the said Department, Directors of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, as also to be the members, besides the members/representatives of the Federation of All India Petroleum Traders stated as to be invited as special invitees. It is stated that, the Committee would look into the demands of the traders for rationalising the growth of retail outlets in the country and that the Committee would prescribe a set of guidelines, on the basis of which, the Oil Marketing Companies will proceed while planning for new retail outlets. The petitioners are free-to pursue the matter, if so advised, before the concerned authority. No opinion is expressed with regard to the merits in this regard. 3. The learned single Judge observed, taking cue from Ext.P10 produced in one among the writ petitions that the Government of India had set up a committee and that the petitioners will be free to pursue the matter, if so advised, before the concerned authority. The learned single Judge, further observed that this court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits in that regard. The three oil marketing companies did not challenge Ext.P3 judgment. The writ petitioners challenged Ext.P3 judgment by filing W.A.Nos.741 of 2011 and connected cases, which were heard and disposed of along with W.P.(C) Nos.21742, 19231, 17933, 19485, 18794 and 21091 of 2011, then pending in this court, by a Division Bench of this court. After considering the rival contentions, a Division Bench of this court allowed the writ appeals by Ext.P4 judgment delivered on 19.10.2011, vacated Ext.P3 judgment of the learned single Judge and disposed of all the writ petitions with the following directions: 12. For the reasons stated above, we allow the Writ Appeals by vacating judgment of the learned Single Judge and dispose of the corresponding WPCs. along with fresh WPCs. filed with the following directions to the respondents. (a) The OMCs. For the reasons stated above, we allow the Writ Appeals by vacating judgment of the learned Single Judge and dispose of the corresponding WPCs. along with fresh WPCs. filed with the following directions to the respondents. (a) The OMCs. Will keep in abeyance starting of all the new outlets proposed against which Writ Appeals and WPCs. are filed, consider the volume of business of the objectors by calling for sales details from them and after verifying with the marketing companies concerned and decide afresh whether the outlet proposed is justified based on the Central Government's Order dated 6.4.2011 and the observations above and if not, to give up such of the retail outlets which are unnecessary. (b) So far as new proposals which are in contemplation, the OMCs. should identify location and advertise for opening up new retail outlets only on being satisfied about the need based on the Government Order and observations and findings stated above and after considering the volume sales of existing operators within 5 Kms. in rural areas and after considering objections if any raised by them. (c) So far as retail outlets objected in W.As. or WPCs. but commissioned during pendency of these cases in this court are concerned, the OMCs. will watch volume sales of the existing and new retail outlets and if it is found that sharing of business makes both unviable and the existing one faces closure, then the operations in the new retail outlets should be suspended until business increases in the area justifying it's reopening. 4. Two among the oil marketing companies carried the matter in appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, by filing Special Leave Petition Nos.1728 to 1736 of 2012. After notice to the respondents therein, the Apex Court granted leave, allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment of the Division Bench, by Ext.P5 order delivered on 02.04.2013 which reads as follows: We have heard learned senior counsel and learned counsel for the parties. 2. Leave granted. 3. We find no justification for the Division Bench to upturn the judgment and order of the single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside. 2. Leave granted. 3. We find no justification for the Division Bench to upturn the judgment and order of the single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside. However, it is observed that the guidelines framed by the High Court may be kept in view by the Central Government if there is need to frame guidelines with regard to establishment of retail outlets of the oil marketing companies. 4. Appeals are allowed with no order as to costs. 5. The Apex Court observed that if the Central Government feels that there is need to frame guidelines with regard to the establishment of retail outlets of the oil marketing companies, it shall keep in view the guidelines framed by the High Court. A reading of Ext.P3 judgment delivered by the learned single Judge and Ext.P4 judgment delivered by the Division Bench disclose that the guidelines extracted in paragraph 3 above were framed only by the Division Bench. 6. The Apex Court delivered Ext.P5 order on 02.04.2013. A week thereafter, the President of the All Kerala Federation of Petroleum Traders ('AKFPT', for short), who is the first petitioner in the writ petition from which these appeals arise, submitted Ext.P6 representation dated 10.04.2013, to the three public sector oil marketing companies and also to the Government of India. Complaining that the said letter is pending for quite long but nothing has transpired, the AKFPT and two of its members filed W.P.(C) No.13023 of 2013 in this court on 23.05.2013. By Ext.P7 judgment delivered on 24.05.2013, a learned single Judge of this court disposed of W.P.(C) No.13023 of 2013 with a direction to the Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, to consider Ext.P6 representation (a copy of which was produced and marked as Ext.P4 in W.P.(C) No.13023 of 2013), and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. The Government after considering Ext.P6 sent Ext.P8 letter dated 18.02.2014 and informed the first petitioner in W.P.(C) No.13023 of 2013, as follows: To: Shri S.Muraleedharan President All Kerala Federation of Petroleum Traders No. 41/2830, Maruthi Building Providence Road Cochin 682 018. Sir, Please refer to your representation dated 10.04.2013 regarding finalization of norms/guidelines for starting new petroleum Retail Outlets (ROs) in the State of Kerala. 2. Sir, Please refer to your representation dated 10.04.2013 regarding finalization of norms/guidelines for starting new petroleum Retail Outlets (ROs) in the State of Kerala. 2. The matter has been examined in consultation with the three Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs), i.e., Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. 3. After dismantling of Administered Price Mechanism (APM) with effect from 1.4.2002, OMCs are setting up ROs at locations found commercially viable after conducting a Feasibility Study for each location. Each OMC prepares its own marketing plans, based on district-wise demand projection, socio-economic factors leading to growth/de-growth of petroleum products, number of ROs already available in the district and other relevant considerations. Rural Ros are also set up on the same basis to ensure availability of petroleum products to all consumers, obviating the need for travelling long distances for their needs. 4. OMCs follow the below mentioned minimum volume criteria for setting up of new Ros: Class of Market Minimum volume (kl pm) A/B and National Highways 150 Other markets and State Highways 100 Rural Markets 25 5. Further, any investment in development of ROs is made by OMCs subject to meeting internal financial viability norms and target IRR. OMCs also follow minimum distance norms between two ROs, as decided by the concerned authorities (NHAI for National Highways and PWD for other highways, etc.). 6. After considering the matter in totality, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas (MoP&NG) is of the view that keeping in view the market dynamics, including entry of private companies, it is necessary and appropriate that OMCs take their own commercial decisions for opening of new ROs keeping in view their marketing plans, market strategy and target IRRs. Consequently, it has been decided that stipulation of volume norms for opening ROs is essentially a commercial matter which is best left to the judgment of the OMCs. 7. In view of the above, MoP&NG has conveyed to the OMCs that volume norms worked out by OMCs have been noted by MOP&NG with the understanding that these are subject to variation by OMCs from time to time. A copy of the letter on the subject dated 6.2.2014, which is self-explanatory, is enclosed as Annexure-I. These volume norms are expected to be achieved within two years of the commissioning of the new RO. 8. A copy of the letter on the subject dated 6.2.2014, which is self-explanatory, is enclosed as Annexure-I. These volume norms are expected to be achieved within two years of the commissioning of the new RO. 8. In this regard, your attention is also invited to the Order of the Honble Supreme Court which you have alluded to in your representation, dated April 2, 2013, which is as below "We find no justification for the "Division Bench to upturn the judgment and order of the single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside. However, it is observed that the guidelines framed by the High Court may be kept in view by the Central Government if there is need to frame guidelines with regard to establishment of retail outlets of the oil marketing companies”. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has left it to the Central Government to decide if there is need to frame guidelines for establishment of retail outlets of OMCs. The Central Government has considered the matter accordingly and issued the letter dated 6.2.2014 (Annexure-I) 9. In so far as throughput in the State of Kerala is concerned, OMCs have furnished the following details: Kerala 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 MS/HSD Sales (Kls) 2463709 2739326 2953660 3268261 No. of New Ros Commissioned 56 43 56 56 Total No. of Outlets (incl. decommissioning) 1638 1694 1710 1763 Throughput/RO (Kls/PM) 130 135 144 154 10. Your representation dated 10.04.2013 is disposed off accordingly. 7. A copy of the letter dated 06.02.2014 appended to Ext.P8 as Annexure is on record as Ext.P9. The said letter reads as follows: No.P-19011/5/2010-IOC Government of India Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi Dated 6 February, 2014 To 1. Director [Marketing], IOCL 2. Director [Marketing), HPCL 3. Director [Marketing], BPCL. Subject : Norms for setting up of Retail Outlets. Sir/Madam, I am directed to refer to BPCL's lelter dated 6th January, 2014 (issued on behalf of OMCs) on the subject mentioned above and to say that the volume norms decided by OMCs for setting up new ROs have been noted by the Ministry as below – A&B Cities - 150 KLPM National Highways - 150 KLPM C Class Town/State Highways - 100 KLPM It is also noted that the norms for new ROs in rural areas will remain unchanged at 25 KLPM. It is further noted that these volume norms are expected to be achieved within two years of commissioning of the RO. 2. In case of deviation from volume norms in specific cases, reasons for deviation may be recorded by the OMCs and approval of functional Director obtained in each case. Further, since the volume norms themselves may require change from time to time, OMCs may vary the volume norms required to meet target IRRs with proper justification, after obtaining approval of Board of Directors. The volume norms may also be placed on the web site of OMCs for public information. 3. This issues with the approval of Minister (P&NG) [Akhilesh Kumar] Under Secretary to the Govt of India 8. The instant writ petition was thereupon filed on 30.06.2014, challenging Ext.P9 and seeking the following reliefs: i. call for the records leading to Ext.P9 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other such appropriate writ, order or direction; ii. issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to frame the regulations in accordance with the undertaking given before this Hon'ble Court and as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court before grant of further retail outlets in the State of Kerala. iii. Issue any other such writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and necessary in order to meet the ends of justice on the facts and in the circumstances of the instant case; and iv. award the costs of this case to the petitioner. 9. The main contention raised in W.P.(C) No.16865 of 2014 is that Ext.P9 is contrary to Exts.P3 and P4 judgments and it violates the valuable rights guaranteed to Petroleum retail dealers, like the petitioners and that Ext.P9 is not a decision taken by the committee constituted by the Central Government and referred to in Paragraph No.31 of Ext.P3 judgment. The petitioners also contended that indiscriminate sanction of Petroleum outlets will not be the interests of either the oil companies or the consumers. The Union of India as well as the public sector oil companies filed separate counter affidavits resisting the writ petitions. The petitioners also contended that indiscriminate sanction of Petroleum outlets will not be the interests of either the oil companies or the consumers. The Union of India as well as the public sector oil companies filed separate counter affidavits resisting the writ petitions. The Union of India contended in paragraph No.8 of its counter affidavit that, it is for the oil marketing companies to take their own commercial decisions for the opening of new retail outlets, keeping in view their marketing plans, marketing strategy and target IRR (short for 'Internal Rate of Return'). The Union of India further contended that deciding the volume norms for opening the retail outlets is a commercial matter which is best left to the judgment of the individual oil marketing companies keeping in mind the strategy, business interest and competitive positions. Paragraph No.8 of the counter affidavit dated 03.09.2014 filed on behalf of the Union of India is extracted below for easy reference: 8. I submit that Oil Marketing Companies are competent to take commercial decisions regarding opening of new retail outlets, keeping in view volume norms and target IRR as decided by each company. The retail outlets are opened by Oil Marketing Companies based on the marketing plan and after conducting feasibility studies with reference to volume norms and target IRR in their commercial interest and judgment. Since the Oil Marketing Companies invest considerable capital resources in retail outlets, they are required to ensure that target IRR is achieved. It is thus not conceivable that OMCs will indiscriminately open new outlets with no regard to their viability as they are Maharatnas (IOCL)/Navratnas (HPCL & BPCL) responsible to their shareholders and have a duty to make commercially sound judgments while making investments in new Ros. There is competition for business and market share between the three oil marketing companies. Entry of private companies has resulted in additional competition, which is expected to increase in the future. Keeping in view the market dynamics, it is necessary that the Oil Marketing Companies take their own commercial decisions for opening of new retail outlets, keeping in view their marketing plans, marketing strategy and target IRR. Thus, deciding the volume norms for opening the retail outlets is essentially a purely commercial matter which is best left to the judgment of individual OMCs keeping in mind the strategy, business interest and competitive positions. 10. Thus, deciding the volume norms for opening the retail outlets is essentially a purely commercial matter which is best left to the judgment of individual OMCs keeping in mind the strategy, business interest and competitive positions. 10. The Union of India further contended that no fundamental right of the petitioners have been violated and, therefore, there is no justification to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court. It also raised various other contentions. The oil companies had in their counter affidavit raised similar contentions. The learned single Judge considered the rival contentions and allowed the writ petition by the impugned judgment on the short ground that Ext.P9 is a proceeding drawn up in a hurry to meet the deadlines fixed by this court in Ext.P4 judgment, that it is not a decision taken by the committee stated to have been set up as assured before this court in Ext.P3 judgment, that the representation submitted by the petitioners did not receive the attention which it deserved in view of Ext.P7 judgment of this court, that all the serious contentions raised by the petitioners have not been referred to therein and, therefore, the matter requires reconsideration. The learned single Judge accordingly quashed Exts.P8 and P9 and directed the respondents to reconsider the issue, after affording the petitioners an opportunity of being heard, in the light of Ext.P7 judgment, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Union of India and the three public sector oil marketing companies have, aggrieved thereby, filed these writ appeals. 11. We heard Sri.M.Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the Union of India, Sri.Paulose C.Abraham, learned counsel appearing for three public sector oil marketing companies and Sri.P.Ravindran, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners, who are respondents 1 and 2 in these writ appeals. 12. The learned Additional Solicitor General contended that the learned single Judge has proceeded on a misconception of facts, when it was held that the Union of India had a duty to consider Ext.P6 representation in the light of the directions issued by this court in Exts.P3 and P4 judgments. 12. The learned Additional Solicitor General contended that the learned single Judge has proceeded on a misconception of facts, when it was held that the Union of India had a duty to consider Ext.P6 representation in the light of the directions issued by this court in Exts.P3 and P4 judgments. Learned counsel contended that with the passing of Ext.P5 order by the Apex Court, on the principles of merger, the observations and directions issued by the Division Bench ceased to operate except to the extent of being taken into account by the Central Government, if the Central Government are of the opinion that there is need to frame guidelines with regard to the establishment of new retail outlets by the oil marketing companies. Learned senior counsel contended that as the Government have not thought it fit to frame a set of guidelines, the guidelines framed by the Division Bench have no bearing and, therefore, the learned single Judge erred in interfering with Exts.P8 and P9. Inviting our attention to the contents of Exts.P8 and P9, learned senior counsel submitted that all that the Government have conveyed to the President of the AKFPT is that after considering the matter in totality, the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas is of the view that keeping in view the market dynamics, including entry of private companies, it is necessary and appropriate that oil marketing companies take their own commercial decisions for opening of new retail outlets keeping in view their marketing plans, market strategy and target IRRs and that the Government of India having in Ext.P8 letter conveyed to the petitioners that the stipulation of volume norms for opening retail outlets is essentially a commercial matter which is best left to the judgment of the oil marketing companies. 13. Learned senior counsel submitted that from a reading of Ext.P8, it will be clear that the Government of India have decided not to frame any guidelines or norms and, therefore, on the terms of Ext.P5 judgment of the Apex Court, the petitioners cannot assail Ext.P8 and/or Ext.P9 letter. With reference to Ext.P9 letter, learned senior counsel further submitted that it is only a letter sent to the Marketing Directors of the three oil marketing companies after noticing the volume norms decided upon by them for setting up new retail outlets. With reference to Ext.P9 letter, learned senior counsel further submitted that it is only a letter sent to the Marketing Directors of the three oil marketing companies after noticing the volume norms decided upon by them for setting up new retail outlets. Learned senior counsel submitted that all that the Government of India have done in Ext.P9 is to remind the oil marketing companies that the volume norms may require change from time to time and the oil marketing companies may vary the volume norms required to meet the target IRRs with proper justification, after obtaining the approval of the Board of Directors and such volume may also be placed on the web site of the oil marketing companies. Learned senior counsel invited our attention to Ext.P8 and submitted that Exts.P8 and P9 convey the decision of the Government of India that it does not feel it necessary to frame a set of guidelines and, therefore, the learned single Judge erred in interfering with Exts.P8 and P9. Sri.Paulose C.Abraham, learned counsel appearing for three public sector oil marketing companies reiterated the said submissions. 14. Per contra, Sri.P.Ravindran, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners contended that the learned single Judge has in Ext.P3 judgment referred to the fact that the Government of India have set up a committee comprising of various stakeholders including representatives of the Federation of All India Petroleum Traders, that the learned single Judge had also observed that the petitioners will be free to pursue the matter before the concerned authority and, therefore, the Government of India had a duty to obtain the views of the committee before proceeding to dispose of Ext.P6 representation. Inviting our attention to Ext.P5 order, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners contended that the Apex Court has set aside only Ext.P4 judgment of the Division Bench meaning thereby that Ext.P3 judgment of the learned single Judge stands and therefore, for that reason also, the committee should have been consulted before the Government of India took a decision on Ext.P6. Inviting our attention to Ext.P7 judgment, learned senior counsel submitted that even in Ext.P7 judgment, the learned single Judge has referred to paragraph No.31 of Ext.P3 judgment and this itself justifies the conclusion in the impugned judgment that the disposal of Ext.P6 representation ought to have been in consultation with the committee. Inviting our attention to Ext.P7 judgment, learned senior counsel submitted that even in Ext.P7 judgment, the learned single Judge has referred to paragraph No.31 of Ext.P3 judgment and this itself justifies the conclusion in the impugned judgment that the disposal of Ext.P6 representation ought to have been in consultation with the committee. Learned senior counsel contended that Ext.P8 is not a proper disposal of Ext.P6 representation and, therefore, for that reason also, the learned single Judge was perfectly justified in interfering with Exts.P8 and P9 letters. 15. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar by learned counsel appearing on either side. We have also gone through the impugned judgment and the pleadings and the materials on record. It is not in dispute that the rights of parties are governed by Ext.P5 order of the Apex Court, which was delivered way back on 02.04.2013. In our opinion, the effect of the judgment of the Apex Court is that the writ petitions which were earlier filed by the members of the AKFPT stood dismissed. All that the Apex Court has in Ext.P5 judgment observed is that the guidelines framed by the High Court (evidently meaning thereby the guidelines occurring in paragraph Nos.12 and 13 of Ext.P4 judgment of the Division Bench), may be kept in view by the Central Government, if the Central Government feels that there is need to frame guidelines with respect to the establishment of retail outlets of the oil marketing companies. Ext.P5 judgment does not in our opinion result in a situation where the Central Government are compelled or put to the necessity of framing a set of guidelines. All that the Apex Court had observed is that, if the Government are framing guidelines it shall keep in mind the observations made by the Division Bench in paragraph Nos.12 and 13 of Ext.P4 judgment. The Apex Court did not direct or permit the writ petitioners in the earlier batch of writ petitions to move the Government of India with a request to frame guidelines. It was left to the volition of the Government of India to decide whether it should frame guidelines or not. The writ petitioners, however, rushed with a representation within a week from the date of Ext.P5 judgment. Ext.P6 representation is dated 10.04.2013. It was left to the volition of the Government of India to decide whether it should frame guidelines or not. The writ petitioners, however, rushed with a representation within a week from the date of Ext.P5 judgment. Ext.P6 representation is dated 10.04.2013. In that representation they requested the Government of India to take steps to frame necessary norms/guidelines for starting new Petroleum retail outlets in the State of Kerala. The petitioners, thereafter, filed W.P.(C) No.13023 of 2013 in this court, on 23.05.2013 complaining that there is inordinate delay in the matter. The learned single Judge after hearing learned counsel on both sides disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the Government to consider Ext.P6 representation and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. It was thereupon that the Government, through its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, sent Ext.P8 letter to the first writ petitioner communicating its decision in the matter. 16. As stated earlier and as argued by the learned senior counsel appearing for the Union of India, the Government have in paragraph No.6 of Ext.P8 letter conveyed the decision of the Government that it has decided to leave the fixation of volume norms for opening retail outlets to the best judgment of the oil marketing companies. This decision of the Government is in our opinion consistent with and in tune with Ext.P5 order passed by the Apex Court. Ext.P5 order of the Apex Court governs the rights of parties. No further directions by a learned single Judge of this court or by a Division Bench can in our opinion confer better and further rights on the writ petitioners. Their rights stand concluded by Ext.P5 judgment. They had in our opinion, no right in them to move the Government to frame a set of guidelines. The petitioners cannot by submitting Ext.P6 representation resurrect an issue which had been finally decided by the Apex Court. They had in our opinion no cause of action to institute W.P.(C) No.13023 of 2013. The judgment of the Apex Court is clear and categoric to the effect that the Government are obliged to take into account the guidelines rendered by the Division Bench of this court in Ext.P4 judgment only if it feels that there is need and necessity to frame a set of guidelines. The judgment of the Apex Court is clear and categoric to the effect that the Government are obliged to take into account the guidelines rendered by the Division Bench of this court in Ext.P4 judgment only if it feels that there is need and necessity to frame a set of guidelines. The Government have in Ext.P8 conveyed their decision, that it has decided to leave it to the oil marketing companies. It is in our opinion a matter of policy having commercial impact and, therefore, this court cannot compel the Government to frame a set of guidelines, which would in turn affect the oil marketing companies. 17. As far as Ext.P9 is concerned, it is in our opinion only a letter sent to the Marketing Directors of the three oil marketing companies by the Government of India. The Government had enclosed it along with Ext.P8 only for the purpose of informing the recipient of Ext.P8 that the said letter is also in tune with the policy of the Government reflected in paragraph Nos.6 and 7 of Ext.P8. The Government have in Ext.P8 also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court and stated that the Supreme Court has left it to the Central Government to decide whether there is need to frame guidelines. The Government have also stated that it has considered the matter and issued a letter dated 06.02.2014. Nowhere is it stated in Ext.P5 judgment that the retail dealers should be consulted before the Government takes a decision in the matter. The Supreme Court has left it to the absolute discretion of the Central Government. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. We, accordingly, allow these appeals, reverse the judgment of the learned single Judge and dismiss the writ petition. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct the parties to suffer their respective costs.