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.

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:

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 dis