JUDGMENT : AMIT RAWAL, J. 1. The present writ appeal is directed against the interim order dated 10.04.2025, whereby the prayer of the petitioners seeking stay of the implementation of Ext.P1 policy dated 21.02.2025, restructuring of the distributorship by way of refill policy, has been declined. It is contended that at an earlier point in time, different oil companies dealing with the distribution of the LPG gases had come out with a policy dated 04.01.2018, giving certain parameters for the purpose of restructuring the market of consumers vis-a-vis the existing LPG distributors. The said policy was under challenge in various high courts. The High Court of Mumbai in WP(C) No. 8753 of 2018 by judgment dated 30.09.2019 quashed the said 2018 policy viz-a.viz. the challenge of restructuring. It is a matter of record that the said judgment is under challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court without any interim stay. 2. Similar policy was under challenge in this court vide writ petition No.1542 of 2020, upholding the policy in question. The matter is also pending consideration. Keeping in view the judgment dated 30.09.2019, the respondents came up with a new policy, policy of 2025, whereby, the Ministry of Petroleum had approved the changes in Clause 2.4.1.1.1 Note (i) under the notes of unified selection guidelines by letter dated 21.02.2025, wherein, on the basis of the grant market environment and LPG scenario in the country revised customer transfer norm for restructuring were directed to be followed in a different manner than it was in 2018 policy and as well as 2016 guidelines. It is contended that the 2016 guidelines pertain to the new LPG distribution but by 2018 policy, though under challenge and as well as policy of 2025, the existing distributors are also brought under its umbrella which could not have been brought into consideration. Similar policy has been under stay by the High Court of Orissa Cuttack in W.P. (C) No. 20912 of 2018; in various writ petitions in the Nagpur Bench vide order dated 07.04.2025 as well as one of the writ petitions of the Patna High Court in the order dated 10.04.2025. 3. Similar policy has been under stay by the High Court of Orissa Cuttack in W.P. (C) No. 20912 of 2018; in various writ petitions in the Nagpur Bench vide order dated 07.04.2025 as well as one of the writ petitions of the Patna High Court in the order dated 10.04.2025. 3. It is contended that once the same policies are under challenge in various other High Courts, it would apply Pan India in view of the order of the Supreme Court in All India Jumiatul Quresh Action Committee through its President Mohammed Abdul Faheem Advocate v. Union of India in W.P. (C) No. 000422 of 2017 vide order dated 11.07.2017. It would create an anomalous and dichotomous situation and the petition cannot be permitted to remain in quandry. 4. On the other hand, Adv. Paulose C. Abraham, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 2 to 4 submitted that the order under challenge declining the interim stay is perfectly legal and justified, as the same very clause in 2018 policy was not found in favor by the various judgments of this Court, whereas, on the contrary, the High Court of Bombay had set it aside and the matter is pending before the Supreme Court though there is no interim stay and thus opposes the grant of interim stay. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. 6. The opening line of the policy dated 21.02.2025 reveals that the Ministry of Petroleum had revisited the clauses as mentioned above of the 2018 policy, which was subject matter of challenge in the erstwhile litigation, and again had brought the existing LPG distributors under the umbrella, whereas the guidelines issued in 2016 still remain in vogue, and have not undergone any sea-change, therefore, under the garb of those clauses, the existing distributors cannot be disturbed violative of Articles 19 and 300A of the Constitution of India . 7. Considering the attenuating circumstances and as far as the conditions of interim stay, i.e., prima facie, balance of convenience as also following the interim orders passed by various High Courts, we order that during the pendency of the writ petition, Clause No.2.4.1.1.1 Note (i) of the policy of 2016 shall remain under stay. 8. Writ appeal stands disposed of. 7. Considering the attenuating circumstances and as far as the conditions of interim stay, i.e., prima facie, balance of convenience as also following the interim orders passed by various High Courts, we order that during the pendency of the writ petition, Clause No.2.4.1.1.1 Note (i) of the policy of 2016 shall remain under stay. 8. Writ appeal stands disposed of. It is made clear that the aforesaid view is a prima facie one, shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion regarding the pendency of the writ petition. We are sanguine of the fact that the counsel representing the parties will take effort to get the pending writ petition decided as expeditiously as possible.