( 1 ) THE petitioner was appointed as a dealer of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. , (HPCL) (not a party to the writ petition ). Sy reason of the same, he is permitted to sell in retail motor spirit (petrol and high speed diesel ). He has been in the business in yanam in Pondicherry for the last seven years. On 14-10-2002, Indian Oil corporation Ltd. , (IOC,) Visakhapatnam invited bids in sealed covers for providing land to IOC on lease for a period of thirty years at various places including at Yanam. The bids have to be submitted to the second respondent at Visakhapatnam. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the writ petition seeking a declaration that the action of the ioc in issuing notification inviting sealed tenders for offering land on lease for establishing petroleum outlet is illegal and arbitrary. His main contention is that Yanam is a small place where there are already adequate number of petroleum outlets of various companies and that if another outlet is licensed in Yanam, the same would be detrimental to his business as a dealer of hpcl. He also apprehends that oil companies have prescribed sales targets to be achieved by various petroleum dealers and if targets are not reached, it would result in cancellation of the dealership. It is his further contention that the notification issued by IOC is contrary to the guidelines issued by various oil companies for providing petroleum outlets as well as the norms prescribed by the Central Government.

( 2 ) THE matter was admitted on 9-1 -2003. As the second respondent has filed a counter affidavit, the writ petition was heard at interlocutory stage and is being finally disposed of with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing Counsel for IOC.

( 3 ) THE counter affidavit filed by the manager (Retail) of IOC, Visakhapatnam on behalf of the second respondent reveals the following. Yanam District is part of pondicherry Union Territory. Therefore, High court of A. P. has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. The volume/ distance norms relied on by the petitioner are non-statutory in nature, and they cannot be enforced in a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, the norms also ceased to have application after 1-4-2002 when petroleum industry was deregulated. The allegation that the sales of petrol and diesel in his petroleum outlet do not exceed 80 K. ltrs. per month is not correct. From April to December 2202, the petitioner sold 884 K. ltrs. of motor spirit and 291 K. ltrs. of diesel and he has monthly average sales of 247 K. ltrs. The other two outlets also recorded monthly average sales of 219 K. ltrs. and 314 K. ltrs. In Yanam, on an average 800 K. ltrs. of petroleum products are being sold. Even as per the morms, if the combined sales are about 80 K. ltrs. it is permissible for petroleum companies to open new outlets. Taking into account the market potentiality in Yanam, the impugned notification was issued for establishing a retail outlet.

( 4 ) IT is also stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner being a business rival is trying to prevent opening of new petrol pumps at Yanam. Earlier he filed w. P. No. 12085 of 1996 before the High court of Judicature at Madras challenging the opening of retail outlet at Yanam by bpcl. The said writ petition was dismissed on 27-1-2003 as not pressed. Having failed to stall opening of a retail outlet by BPCL. , the petitioner now approached this Court when IOC has received No Objection certificate from the district officials for establishment of outlet and IOC is in the process of setting up a new outlet. So far, no dealer has been identified. As dealer selection boards have been disbanded, there is no possibility of appointing fresh petroleum dealers. The company is, therefore, proposing to operate a retail outlet of the company as company owned company operated outlet (COCO ).

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the