Heard Sri N. Subba Reddy, the learned senior counsel instructed by Sri K. Ananda Rao, the learned counsel for some of the petitioners; Mis P. Venugopal, M.V. Rajaram, Srinivas Dammalapati, K. Bheema Rao, V. Venugopala Rao, L. Prabhakar Reddy, K. Vasudeva Reddy and P. Shiv Kumar, the learned counsel for other petitioners in this batch of Writ Petitions. Mis. P.V. Sanjay Kumar, the learned counsel for Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Indian Oil Corporation Limited; O. Manohar Reddy, the learned counsel for Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited; A. Rajashekar Reddy, the learned Assistant Solicitor General for Union of India wherever impleaded; the learned Government Pleaders for Revenue and for Civil Supplies for the official respondents and other learned counsel Mis. K. Venkateshwarlu, Deepak Bhattacharjee, P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, B. Sreehari, B. Narayana Reddy, P.V. Sanjeeva Rao, Arun Yalagiri, Ckhayanam Ravindranath, K. Kishor Kumar Reddy, A. Rajitha, Vijaya Bhaskar Moola, T.v. Ramana Rao, and Challari Nageswara Rao for some of the party respondents impleaded in some of the writ petitions.

2. The several writ petitions are by existing Liquefied Petroleum Gas (for short 'LPG') Distributors accredited either to the Indian Oil Corporation, the Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Limited or the Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited (for short 'the Oil Companies'). The challenge is to a notification dated 01-10-2007 (the impugned notification) jointly issued by the Oil Companies calling for applications for appointment as LPG Distributors at several locations in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Under this notification, (84) new Dealerships by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited; (46) by the Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited and (75) by the Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Limited have been notified at different locations in the State. The notification proposes grant of Dealerships at the notified locations in addition and to complement the existing dealerships. None of the Oil Companies have initiated action for termination of the existing Dealerships of any of the petitioners. The petitioners do not canvass any such conduct of the Oil Companies.

3. The principal and even singular challenge to the impugned notification is on the ground that the identification of these locations for grant of new LPG Dealerships is in contravention of the guidelines on restructuring of LPG Dealerships issued on 14-02-2000 and is also at variance with the professed policy of the Oil Companies as set out in a counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Limited (and equally applicable to the other Oil Companies) in an earlier Writ Petition No. 1042 of 2005. As a nuance of this contention, the petitioners submit that the Oil Companies have varied the earlier professed policy and arbitrarily. As a consequence, the petitioners are adversely impacted with the civil consequences and the viability of their business under the existing Dealership agreements is subverted. On behalf of some of the petitioners, it is also contended that the grant of new dealerships consequent on the impugned notification will adversely impact the ceiling limits imposed on existing dealers by the respective Oil Companies to which the several petitioners are accredited.

4. Since the grounds of challenge to the impugned notification in all the writ petitions are substantially similar, suffice it to consider the fact matrix in W.P.No. 23663 of 2007 which is illustrative of the other writ petitions as well.

The relevant facts in W.P.No. 23663 of 2007:

5. The petitioner on its application was granted a Letter of Intent for Dealership of LPG (Indian Gas) on 01-06-2004. Under the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the Indian Oil Corporation, the business is to be localized at Medikonduru with a (15) kilometre radius specified as the area of operation. A Memorandum of Agreement was entered into between the petitioner and a representative of