JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder, following reliefs have been sought for : “a. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the impugned advertisements issued by the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in which, the Respondent No. 2 to 4 have notified to set up 1905 Retail Outlets in the State of Jharkhand and further declare the same as illegal and in operative. b. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of Prohibition restraining Respondent Nos. 2 to 4, its officers or and any other persons under it, from accepting or considering any application pursuant to the said advertisements and setting up a new retail outlet in the territory. c. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or directions in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to set in motion or to start new Retail Outlets in the State of Jharkhand only after considering the feasibility and viability study report as swell as taking into account of annual increase of consumption of fuel in the State of Jharkhand which is proportionate to the requirement for opening the new Retail Outlets in a particular financial year and also considering the present volume of the existing dealers.” 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petition is that the petitioner who is a society has been constraint to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court challenging the advertisements issued by the respondent Nos.2 to 4 whereby the concerned respondents have called the public at large to offer their lands and bid to install nearly 57396 (114000 total outlets by the year 2019-20, 56604 outlets in existence as on 31.03.2018 as per PPAC report) proposed to be established all over the India and 1905 additional petrol pumps/retail outlets for the sale and distribution of petroleum products in the State of Jharkhand as against 1207 total outlets in existence as on 31.03.2018. 3. 3. The said decision has been taken by the concerned respondents without holding any discussion with its stake holders i.e., the petitioners and its members and without taking into consideration the viability or sustainability for opening such a large number of new retail outlets, in short RO's, and impact of the same would have been on the sales being faced by RO's across the State of Jharkhand. 4. The ground has been agitated that while coming out with the impugned advertisements, the concerned respondents have failed to consider the concerns expressed by the officers of the respondent No.1 wherein the decision has been taken at the meeting to discuss the rapid mushrooming of RO's in the country on account of the fact that from 2002 to 2011 the increase in the RO's as the setting up of new RO's was eating the volumes of existing RO's and the same was leading to malpractices. Further, the concerned respondents have also failed to consider the parameters pertaining to opening/setting up on new RO's as laid down by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court at Earnakulam in Writ Appeal No.741 of 2011 disposed of vide order dated 19th October, 2011. 5. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted by referring to the minutes of meeting under the leadership of the Minister of State, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas regarding the norms for setting up of retail outlets wherein some actions have been approved one of which is that the oil marketing companies should put in place a mechanism for fixing of accountability of the officer responsible for conducting feasibility study and approving the location of RO in cases where the actual sales volume falls substantially short of the projected sales volume after stabilization of sales, say after a one year period from commissioning, meaning thereby, before installing the retail outlets, feasibility study is required to be done and it is only thereafter the outlet is to be opened. He has relied upon a judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in Writ Appeal No.741 of 2011 along with other analogous cases wherein according to him, by taking care of the aforesaid minutes of meeting, the Hon'ble Kerala High Court has come out with the order by setting aside the order passed by the writ Court directing therein to formulate the mechanism and it is only then the steps for installing of retail outlets be taken and therefore, he has submitted that instant case also falls squarely under the fold of the ratio decided by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court and exactly for the State of Jharkhand no feasibility report has been obtained, therefore, in absence of any feasibility report in this regard, the decision for installing the petroleum retail outlets is absolutely improper and illegal, therefore, appropriate direction has been sought to be issued in the instant writ petition. 6. Mr. Binod Singh, learned counsel represented the respondent No.1, Mr. Rahul Lamba, learned counsel represented the respondent No.2, Mr. V. Shivnath, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Amarnath Gupta, learned counsel represented the respondent No.3 and Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned counsel represented the respondent No.4. 7. Mr. V. Shivnath, learned senior counsel has argued out the case on behalf of the respondents whose argument has been accepted by the learned counsel representing the other respondents. V. Shivnath, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Amarnath Gupta, learned counsel represented the respondent No.3 and Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned counsel represented the respondent No.4. 7. Mr. V. Shivnath, learned senior counsel has argued out the case on behalf of the respondents whose argument has been accepted by the learned counsel representing the other respondents. Learned senior counsel has submitted that the petitioners are putting reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of Hon'ble Kerala High Court but the said judgment fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2784-2792 of 2013 and the Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgment dated 02nd April, 2013 has been pleased to set aside the judgment passed by the Division Bench of Hon'ble Kerala High Court, however, with the observation 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, therefore, his submission is that the order passed by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court has lost its force after the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid civil appeal and as such the very foundation of the argument of the petitioners which is based upon the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court, is having no force. He has further relied upon the various orders/judgments passed by different High Courts wherein the similar nature of advertisements have been challenged which have been floated for allotment of the retail outlets, the respective Hon'ble High Courts have refused to interfere. The reference of judgments rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of All Haryana Petroleum Dealers' Association vs. Union of India and Ors., in W.P.(C) 5077/2019 & CM Nos.22544/2019, 22545/2019 & 22546/2019, Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the cases of Munnalal Agrawal and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors., in W.P. No.2001 of 2019 and Manthan Parmarthik Sanstha vs. Union of India and Ors., in W.P. No.1294 of 2019, Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of West Bengal Petroleum Dealers Association and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors., in MAT 145 of 2019 with CAN 1024 of 2019 with 890 of 2019, have been placed. vs. Union of India and Ors., in MAT 145 of 2019 with CAN 1024 of 2019 with 890 of 2019, have been placed. In the background of the aforesaid judgment passed by the different High Courts across the country, it is the submission of the learned senior counsel representing the respondents that the similar issues have been dealt with by the High Courts wherein the writ petitions have been dismissed, therefore, the instant writ petition also deserves to be dismissed. His further submission is that the petitioners cannot come and question the policy decision if taken by the oil marketing companies before the High Court by filing writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in exercise of power of judicial review unless the policy decision is unfair and hits the vice of Article 14 of the Constitution of India but herein no such case has been made out rather only ground has been taken that if the retail outlets would be allowed to be opened, it will lead to financial loss to the existing retail outlets, therefore, the decision taken by the oil marketing companies is not proper and accordingly, fit to be quashed. 8. Mr. Binod Singh, learned Central Government counsel has submitted that the petitioners or its members are having relationship with the oil marketing companies and if the oil marketing companies are taking any policy decision, it is up to the oil marketing companies to deal with the same with its licensee of the retail outlets and so far as the minutes of meeting is concerned, as has been relied upon by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, the same has been dealt with by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2784-2792 of 2013 making an observation that if the Central Government feel it necessary, may come out with any policy decision but as yet no such policy decision has come out, therefore, merely on the ground of that observation, the petitioners are having no case. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions, this Court before entering into the merit of the issues, deem it fit and proper to discuss the scope of judicial review by the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions, this Court before entering into the merit of the issues, deem it fit and proper to discuss the scope of judicial review by the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. It is not in dispute that power of judicial review can be exercised by the High Court but only in a case where the policy decision suffers from unfairness or non-transparency or is contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India, save and except, these grounds, the High Court in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere with the policy decision if taken by the authority concerned, reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered in the case of Tamil Nadu Education Department Ministerial and General Subordinate Services Association and Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. reported in (1980) 3 SCC 97 , has opined that: “The Court cannot strike down a Government order or a policy merely because there is a variation or contradiction. Life is sometimes contradiction and even consistency is not always a virtue. What is important is to know whether mala fides vitiates or irrational and extraneous factors fouls.” The reference of Lord Justice Lawton in Laker Airways vs. Department of Trade (1977) 2 WLR 234 , while considering the parameters of judicial review in matters involving policy decision of the execution. It has been held therein : “in the United Kingdom affiliation policy is to be determined by the ministers within the legal framework set out by the Parliament. Judges have nothing to do it either policy-making or the carrying out the policy. Their function is to decide whether a minister has acted within the powers given to him by the statute or the common law, if it is declared by a Court after day process of law, to have acted outside his powers, he must sought doing he has done until such time as parliament gives him the powers he wants.” In the judgment rendered in the case of State of Jharkhand and Ors. vs. Ashok Kumar Dangi and Ors. vs. Ashok Kumar Dangi and Ors. reported in (2011) 13 SCC 383 Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold at paragraph 17 and 18 that : “the settled position of law is that the State Government must have liberty and freedom in framing policy.” 11. In the light of the aforesaid settled position of law, this Court has examined the issue raised by the petitioners by way of filing the instant writ petition. 12. The crux of the argument of the petitioners is the minutes of meeting which has been taken under the leadership of the Minister of State, Oil and Petroleum wherein while approving the decision taken in the said meeting, one of the decisions is to the effect that before opening of retail outlets feasibility report is to be prepared. The petitioners have relied upon an order passed by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court as has been annexed as Annexure-3 wherein also the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court has taken into consideration the aforesaid guidelines and has passed order to the effect that without getting any feasibility report, the authority if comes for establishing new retail outlets, it would not be proper. The said judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2784-2792 of 2013 but the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to set aside the order passed by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court, however, with an observation which reads hereunder as : “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.” It is evident from the judgment passed by the Division Bench which has been passed after having granted the leave and the Special Leave Petition has been converted into Civil Appeal, therefore, on the basis of the merger principle, the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court has been merged with the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The question of merger fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar vs. Krishnaji Dattatraya Bapat, reported in AIR 1970 SC 1 . It is evident therefrom that the principle of merger will only come when the order will be passed on merits. The matter would have been different if no leave would have been granted in the SLP then the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court will have no binding precedence but once the order would be passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, even if brief, it would have binding precedence, therefore, the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2784-2792 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the judgment passed by the Division Bench of Hon'ble Kerala High Court since has been set aside, therefore, the order passed by Hon'ble Apex Court is having binding precedence and as such the same is to be followed within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. In view of the said legal position the reliance as has been placed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners upon the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court is having no force. 13. Mr. V. Shivnath, learned senior counsel has placed reliance upon the various judgments passed by different High Courts i.e., Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of All Haryana Petroleum Dealers' Association vs. Union of India and Ors., in W.P.(C) 5077/2019 & CM Nos.22544/2019, 22545/2019 & 22546/2019, Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the cases of Munnalal Agrawal and Anr. Mr. V. Shivnath, learned senior counsel has placed reliance upon the various judgments passed by different High Courts i.e., Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of All Haryana Petroleum Dealers' Association vs. Union of India and Ors., in W.P.(C) 5077/2019 & CM Nos.22544/2019, 22545/2019 & 22546/2019, Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the cases of Munnalal Agrawal and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors., in W.P. No.2001 of 2019 and Manthan Parmarthik Sanstha vs. Union of India and Ors., in W.P. No.1294 of 2019, Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of West Bengal Petroleum Dealers Association and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors., in MAT 145 of 2019 with CAN 1024 of 2019 with 890 of 2019, wherein the similar issues have been raised but the High Courts have been pleased to decline to interfere with the impugned decisions of the authority. This Court in the background of this factual aspect as well as the judgment rendered by different High Courts and going across the documents on behalf of the petitioners, who has placed reliance upon the minutes of meeting is of the view that merely on account of a decision taken by the concerned Minister of a department, the same cannot be said to be a policy decision issued by the State. 14. It is evident from the argument advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner that heavy reliance has been placed upon the decision taken by the concerned Minister in the minutes of meeting and that has been said to be a policy decision and therefore, having binding effect but before considering it as to be a policy decision, this Court needs to refer that what in the democratic set up is said to be a policy decision. 15. It is not in dispute that we are in a system of collective responsibility which holds of all Ministers equally and jointly responsible for every decision taken by the Government. In private or within the Government they may disagree and argue about the policy, but once a decision is taken, they must support and defend it in public. If any decision taken by the concerned Minister, is not in a position to bring himself to stifle his disagreement in public, the consequence would be of his resignation. In private or within the Government they may disagree and argue about the policy, but once a decision is taken, they must support and defend it in public. If any decision taken by the concerned Minister, is not in a position to bring himself to stifle his disagreement in public, the consequence would be of his resignation. This applies to decision taken in cabinet by a smaller gathering of Ministers such as cabinet committees or individual Minister and every Minister shares responsibility for every decision whether he was involved in taking it or not. Collective responsibilities is an assessed hipocracy, but a necessary one. Under the cabinet system of a governance, there are two facets of responsibilities; Ministerial responsibility and collective responsibility. All Ministers are collectively responsible for the Government policy and Minister shall be responsible in formulating it. The system of cabinet system, therefore, is the instrument by which practical effect is given to this principle of collective responsibility of Ministers who are separately responsible to Parliament for the administration of their own department. The concept of collective responsibility is essentially a political concept and has two meanings which are legitimately ascribed to it. First, while formulating the policies although members of a Government may have expressed different views in the meeting of the cabinet, yet all of them are unanimous in supporting the government policies and would exhibit unanimity on all issues in public. Second, the Minister with an opportunity to speak for or against the policies in the cabinet, ought to bear moral, political and personal responsibility. In other words, all these collective responsibilities means that every member of the Government must be prepared to support all cabinet decisions for both inside and outside House. If the Minister is unable to reconcile himself or herself with any cabinet decision and decides to speak out, the only option is to resign from the cabinet. The question fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in its Constitution Bench wherein the question was whether the Governor can exercise powers and functions of appointment and removal of members of the subordinate judicial service, in the case of Shamsher Singh and Anr. vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1974 SCC 2192, the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to draw parallel between West Minister form of Government and the Indian Parliamentary Act form of Government. vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1974 SCC 2192, the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to draw parallel between West Minister form of Government and the Indian Parliamentary Act form of Government. In has in that context, referred to the fundamental principle of English Constitutional law that Ministers must accept responsibility for every executive act. It was held that in England, the sovereign never acts on his own responsibility and that the power of the sovereign is conditioned by the practical rule that the Crown must find advisers who have the confidence of the House of Commons to bear the responsibility for his action. The Rule of English Constitutional law is incorporated in our Constitution which envisages a parliamentary and responsible form of Government at the Centre and in the States and not a Presidential form of Government. What tantamount to Government decision was examined in Gulabrao Keshavrao Patil & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in 1996 (2) SCC 26 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that action of the Government is conclusive only when provisions of Constitution and business rule under Article 166(3) are complied with. Before action or decision is expressed in the name of Governor in the manner prescribed under those Rules and communicated to the party concerned, the Government could always reconsider its decision. In that context, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in paragraph-14 of the judgment that the responsibilities of Council of Minister under Article 164(2) of the Constitution embodied the political responsibility of the Ministry headed by the Chief Minister. As stated above, collective responsibility makes each Minister responsible to the legislature for the acts of himself and other members of the Council of Ministers. In the Common Cause, a Registered Society vs. Union of India, reported in (1999) 6 SCC 667 , a three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court has examined the scope of Article 77 of the Constitution. It has held that order issued in the name of President does not become order of President passed by him personally; it remains essentially an order of Minister on whose advice President had acted and passed that order. In that context, the Hon'ble Apex Court has examined the concept of “collective responsibility” and held that it essentially is a political concept. In that context, the Hon'ble Apex Court has examined the concept of “collective responsibility” and held that it essentially is a political concept. The country is governed by the party in power on the basis of the policies adopted and laid down by it in the Cabinet. If the Cabinet takes a decision and where the policy by a particular Minister is not attached it is the Government as a whole which is being attached, thus, the defeat of a Minster on any major issue represents the defeat of a Government. The advantages of the Cabinet collective responsibility are enumerated as, first, it counteracts departmental separation for each Minister has to be concerned with policies of other departments. Second, it prevents the policy of one department being determined unilaterally. Since it is the Cabinet as a whole which decides, Ministers are less likely to be over-influenced by their civil servants. Third, it ensures that Cabinet decisions are based on principles and not on personalities. In the light of this background the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that the decision taken by the Minister in meeting will be held to be binding, is not acceptable on two grounds. First, the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe 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. This observation thus reflects that it is the Central Government who is to frame guidelines and ultimately the decision taken by the Ministers cannot be said to be a decision taken by the Central Government in view of the set up of collective responsibility as discussed and referred hereinabove. Secondly, the decision taken in the minutes of meeting since is of the concerned Ministers, the same action takes the shape of a policy decision as per the collective system of Governance which our Constitution mandates as discussed in detail as above and hence, the same cannot be said to be a binding effect. 16. Secondly, the decision taken in the minutes of meeting since is of the concerned Ministers, the same action takes the shape of a policy decision as per the collective system of Governance which our Constitution mandates as discussed in detail as above and hence, the same cannot be said to be a binding effect. 16. In that view of the matter and taking into consideration the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2784-2792 of 2013 as also by different High Courts and also considering the fact that if the oil marketing companies have taken a policy decision for installing retail outlets the question of interference by the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be said to be proper since the petitioners have not come out with a case of unfairness or arbitrariness or non-transparency committed on the part of the respondent-authorities, save and except, that it will lead to suffering so far as the financial condition of the licensee of the retail outlets are concerned, but that cannot be a ground for interference by the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in exercise of power of judicial review. 17. In the entirety of facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioners have failed to make out a case for passing positive direction by interfering with the impugned advertisements, accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.