1. Writ petitions challenged the allotment of retail petroleum outlets, alleging non-adherence to distance guidelines prescribed by road transport authorities for Major District Roads. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 197
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Another – Appellants
Versus
M/s. Aditya H.P. Centre and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 2701-2702 of 2024, Civil Appeal No. 2704 of 2024, Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2024, Civil Appeal Nos. 2705-2706 of 2024
Decided On : 22-01-2026
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Raghavendra P. Shankar, A.S.G. Mrs. Priya Puri, AOR Ms. Pallavi Mishra, Adv. Mr. Neelabh Bisht, Adv. Mr. Sachin Dubey, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Adv. Mr. Sharad Kumar Puri, Adv. Ms. Riya Dogra, Adv.
For the Respondent(s):Mr. M.C. Dhingra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gaurav Dhingra, AOR Mr. Shashank Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Singh, AOR Mr. Ravi Bakshi, Adv. Mr. S. Gowthaman, AOR Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General Mr. Ravi Bakshi, Adv. Mr. Manvendra Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajnesh Gaur, Adv. Mr. Saksham Thareja, Adv. Mr. Kumar Vinayak, Adv. Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Rajat Nair, Adv. Bhuvan Kapoor, Adv. Chitrangda Rashtravara, Adv. Mrigna Shekhar, Adv. Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR Mr. Sachin Jain, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, AOR Mr. Vishal, Adv. Mrs. Shubhdara Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Kumar Amartya, Adv. Mr. Amitabh Singh, Adv. Mr. Amitbah Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Bharat Manubarwala, Adv. Mrs. Shaila Arora, Adv. Ms. Tanishka Grover, Adv. Mr. Bharat Thakorlal Manubarwala, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Raghavendra P. Shankar, A.S.G. Mrs. Priya Puri, AOR Ms. Pallavi Mishra, Adv. Mr. Neelabh Bisht, Adv. Mr. Sachin Dubey, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Adv. Mr. Sharad Kumar Puri, Adv. Ms. Riya Dogra, Adv.
For the Respondent(s):Mr. M.C. Dhingra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gaurav Dhingra, AOR Mr. Shashank Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Singh, AOR Mr. Ravi Bakshi, Adv. Mr. S. Gowthaman, AOR Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General Mr. Ravi Bakshi, Adv. Mr. Manvendra Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajnesh Gaur, Adv. Mr. Saksham Thareja, Adv. Mr. Kumar Vinayak, Adv. Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Rajat Nair, Adv. Bhuvan Kapoor, Adv. Chitrangda Rashtravara, Adv. Mrigna Shekhar, Adv. Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR Mr. Sachin Jain, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, AOR Mr. Vishal, Adv. Mrs. Shubhdara Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Kumar Amartya, Adv. Mr. Amitabh Singh, Adv. Mr. Amitbah Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Bharat Manubarwala, Adv. Mrs. Shaila Arora, Adv. Ms. Tanishka Grover, Adv. Mr. Bharat Thakorlal Manubarwala, AOR
The IRC and MoRTH guidelines are enforceable only if adopted by the respective State; mere assertion of their applicability without proof is insufficient in legal proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Indian Roads Congress (IRC) Guidelines - Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) Guidelines - Retail outlets - The High Court quashed the allotment of retail outlets by Indian Oil Corporation Limited, ruling that IRC and MoRTH guidelines were applicable. The guidelines require minimum distance from intersections for retailer establishments which were violated in this case. Appellant claimed guidelines were non-statutory and not enforceable. Court found reliance on IRC guidelines unjustified without state evidence of adoption. (Paras 11, 18, 34)
Facts of the case:
Respondents-writ petitioners challenged the allotment of retail outlets by appellant-IOCL, alleging non-compliance with IRC and MoRTH guidelines regarding minimum distances from intersections. The allotments were made without public advertisement and in violation of distance regulations from existing outlets. (Paras 7, 8)
Findings of Court:
The High Court erred in concluding that IRC and MoRTH guidelines were applicable to the locations in question without proof of state adoption. The High Court was incorrect in shifting the burden of proof to respondents-writ petitioners regarding guideline applicability. (Paras 30, 34)
Issues: Whether IRC and MoRTH guidelines apply to the allotment of retail outlets on Major District Roads; whether the High Court erred in its findings regarding guideline compliance. (Paras 26, 28)
Ratio Decidendi: Without the state adopting IRC and MoRTH guidelines for Major District Roads, the High Court's ruling that the appellant failed to comply with them lacks factual basis; the guidelines cannot be enforced as mandatory. (Paras 29, 34)
Result: Appeals allowed, High Court orders set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Opposing parties disputed whether road guidelines were mandatory or applicable to Major District Roads, and whether the burden of proving their applicability rested upon the writ petitioners. (Para 9 , 15 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 25 )
3. The High Court failed to require actual proof of the adoption of road guidelines by the State, erroneously placing the burden of rebuttal on the appellants. (Para 27 , 28 , 30 , 32 , 33 )
4. A writ petitioner bears the primary burden to plead and establish facts through evidence, including proving the legal applicability of contested departmental guidelines in the given jurisdiction. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 33 )
5. The High Court orders are set aside as the petitioner failed to prove the adoption of road guidelines by the State, and the appeals are allowed. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 )
6. Upon whom lies the burden to prove the applicability of regulatory guidelines in a writ petition?
The burden of proving facts asserted in a writ petition rests squarely upon the party making the assertion; the court will not entertain points that are not supported by evidence or pleadings. (Para 29 , 30 )
7. Can private guidelines be enforced in the absence of formal state adoption?
General departmental guidelines, such as those from the Indian Roads Congress, do not automatically apply to state roads unless formally adopted by the relevant state government authorities. (Para 11 , 33 )
8. Does a court have the obligation to investigate factual claims in a writ petition based on affidavits?
A writ court decides on the basis of pleadings and evidence provided by parties; it is not obligated to entertain arguments that are not substantiated by proper evidence or documents on record. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 )
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP MEHTA, J.
1. Heard.
2. The present batch of appeals proceed on identical questions of facts and law and accordingly, they have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
3. For the sake of convenience, Civil Appeal Nos. 2701-2702 of 2024 are being treated as the lead matters and reference to facts and issues is being made therefrom for the purpose of disposal of the batch of appeals.
4. Briefly stated, facts relevant and necessary for adjudication of the issues involved in the instant appeals are as follows.
I. BRIEF FACTS
5. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited1 [Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘appellant-IOCL’] is in appeals before us assailing identical orders rendered by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla.2 [Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘High Court’] The details of the writ petitions filed before the High Court along with the dates of decision are as noted herein-below:
| S. No. | Particulars | Date of Order |
| 1. | Civil Writ Petition No. 4239 of 2020; Civil Writ Petition No. 3338 of 2020; Civil Writ Petition No. 2703 of 2020 | 17th August, 2021 |
| 2. | Civil Writ Petition No. 847 of 2021 | 6th September, 2021 |
| 3. | Civil Writ Petition No. 3378 of 2022 | 9th November, 2022 |
6. The writ petitioners before the High Court in CWP No. 4239 of 2020 and CWP No. 2703 of 2020 are themselves retail outlet dealers of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL), whereas the writ petitioner in CWP No. 3338 of 2020 had filed the writ petition pro bono publico i.e. by way of public interest litigation petition.
7. The sum and substance of the challenge laid by the writ petitioners3 [Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘respondents-writ petitioners] before the High Court was to the allotment of retail outlets by the appellant-IOCL in favour of Agro Industries Corporation Limited and Shri Satwant Singh, on the ground that the said allotments were contrary to and in violation of the guidelines framed by the Indian Roads Congress4 [Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘IRC’] and the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways.5 [Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘MoRTH’.]
8. The undisputed facts on record reveal that the disputed retail outlets were being established on a plot of land adjacent to roads declared as Major District Roads by the State of Himachal Pradesh. The respondents-writ petitioners contended before the High Court that the guidelines framed by the IRC and by the MoRTH, having been adopted by the State of Himachal Pradesh, required that any allotment or establishment of retail outlets had to adhere strictly to the said guidelines, which prescribe a minimum distance of 300 to 1000 meters from the intersections of National Highways/State Highways/Major District Roads, whereas in the present case, they alleged that: (i) the distance of the disputed retail outlets at Village Bohan from the intersection was less than 100 meters; (ii) the requisite distances from the intersections of the National Highway and also from a Village Road were not considered and enforced; (iii) the allotments had been made without issuing advertisement and (iv) lastly and most importantly, the appellant-IOCL, while granting the retail outlet dealership to the parties, did not maintain the requisite distance between the existing retail outlets and the proposed retail outlets.
9. The appellant-IOCL, in its reply to the writ petitions before the High Court, did not specifically deny the allegations concerning the non-maintenance of the requisite distances from intersections, National Highway, and other approach roads, as well as the minimum distance required to be maintained between two retail outlets. Instead, the appellant-IOCL took a specific stand that the guidelines issued by the IRC were non-statutory in nature and, therefore, neither applicable nor enforceable, and further contended that the guidelines framed by the MoRTH were applicable onl
