Guidelines issued by administrative bodies are not legally binding unless they are given statutory force. Policy decisions of government bodies are binding and enforceable if they are not arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

The petitioner in this application has, inter alia, sought for issuance of an appropriate writ directing enforcement of a circular letter issued by the Indian Road Congress and recommended practice for location and layout of roadside motor fuel filling and motor fuel filling-cum-service stations.

2. The said recommendations were made on the basis of certain alleged principles. Clause 4.1 of the said circular provides that as a general rule, the clear distance between two adjacent filling stations (these will also include fuel filling-cum-service stations) should not be less than 300 metres.

3. The fact of the matter lies in a very compass.

4. The petitioner runs a petrol pump in Mouza Padima on plot Nos. 1107 and 1073 which were taken on lease from the Administrator, Digha Development Scheme by the petitioner. The petitioner found that another filling up station would be established just by the side of his Petrol Pump by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. in violation of the said scheme.

5. According to the petitioner as the principles were arrived at by the Indian Road Congress upon holding a meeting with the representatives of principal oil companies of the country, namely Bharat Petroleum, Indian Oil Corporation, Hindustan Petroleum etc. the same is binding on them. It is further contended that apart from the said circular existence of two fuel filling stations side by side would cause a fire hazard.

6. In its affidavit-in-opposition, the respondent No.2, however, contends that the said circular is not legally enforceable. It is stated that the said rules are merely guidelines and they apply only as a general rule. According to the said respondents keeping in view the fact stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that no other suitable land is available, another petrol pump was allowed to be set up at that place. It is stated :–

“It is well-established that the average retail sales of Fuel of all the outlets in the given area (30 K.M. stretch of Highway with Digha at its Centre), is 320 KL per month. The petitioner's outlet has even registered a sale of 400 KL per month during 1995-96. By following the principles laid down in the volume/distant norms, there is valid ground and ample justification for setting up the outlet by the Indian Oil Corporation at the site provided by Digha Development Scheme Authority of the State Government. I shall produce the Retail Market Survey report of sale figures of the three retail outlets during the financial year 1995-96 before the Hon’ble Court at the hearing.”

7 It is further contended that there is no established basic principle that there shall always be a gap of 300 Metres in between two Petrol Pumps.

8. Mr. L.C Bihani, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised a short question in support of this application. The learned Counsel submits that the aforementioned policy decision is binding upon the respondent-corporation. According to the learned Counsel; the said policy decision has always been made applicable in the matter of allotment of petrol pumps by the respondent-corporation. The learned Counsel in support of his aforementioned contention has relied on a passage from Wade & Forsyth on Administrative Law, 7th Edition, at page 871, and a decision of (1) House of Lords in Gillick v. West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority and Anr. reported in 1986 Appeal Cases 112 : (1985)3 All ER 402.

9. Mr. P.K Roy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-corporation, on the other hand, submitted that the circular in question is not a circular of the Indian Oil Corporation. It is stated that a mere recommendation of •the Indian Road Congress cannot he enforced by filing a writ application. According to the learned Counsel in any event, from a perusal of Clause 4.1 of the said recommendation it would appear that the same applies as a general rule and keeping in view the fact that no land was available although the respondent corporation