Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J.

Are the directions given by the Government of India vide letter dated October 10, 2001 for the transfer of L. P. G. connections from one distributor to another on the basis of viability norms arbitrary and illegal? . This is the primary question that arises for consideration in these cases.

2. The petitions in O.P.Nos. 37638/2001 and 15397/2003 contend that the instructions contained in the letter dated October 10, 2001 and the consequential directions given by the Oil Marketing Companies vide letter dated April 28, 2003 are arbitrary and illegal. Copies of these letters have been produced as Exts.P6 and P7. As against this, the petitioners in three cases viz. O.P.Nos.22271 of 2002, 4637 and 8269 of 2003 claim that the instructions are legal and valid. They pray that these instructions should be implemented forthwith so that the newly appointed distributors who have invested substantial amounts are able to sell gas and make a living.

3. There is yet another case viz. O.P.No.9289 of 2003. This has been filed by an Association of consumers, who are being supplied gas by the 2nd respondent. They pray that they should not be transferred to any other newly appointed distributor. Apparently, this petition has been filed at the instance of the distributor so as to ensure that the instructions issued by the Government of India are not implemented.

4. Learned counsel for the parties have referred to the facts in O.P.N0. 15397 of 2003. These may be briefly noticed.

5. The petitions are distributors of Liquefied Petroleum Gas. They were appointed as distributors by the Indian Oil Corporation. At the time of appointment, an agreement was executed. A copy of the agreement as executed on June 28, 1990 by the first petitioner has been produced as Ext.P1. The petitioners allege that vide letters dated October 29, 1985, APRIL 29, 1995, May 14, 1997 and February 26, 2000 the respondent-corporation had been periodically revising the ceiling limits on the sale of L.P.G. refills by each distributor. The copies of these letters have been produced as Exts.P2 to P5. To illustrate: in the letter dated October 29, 1985 the number of refills in a city with a population of below 50,000 had been fixed at 4000. This was prior to the date on which the petitioners had been appointed as distributors. In the revision made more than 10 years later, vide letter dated April 21, 1995, at time of revision in case of towns with a population upto 10 lakhs the ceiling was raised from 4000 to 5000. Vide letter dated May 14, 1997 it was raised to 6000. Finally in February 2000, the limit was raised to 8000.

6. The petitioners allege that in view of the revision in limit they had made arrangements so as to provide better customer service by investing more money. However, on October 10, 2001 the Central Government had issued instructions informing the Oil Marketing Companies of the decision to “transfer LPG connections from the old distributors to the newly commissioned /un-viable LPG distributorships in all the saturated markets” instead of following the “ceiling limit criteria to ensure the viability of newly commissioned / un-viable distributorship within first year of its operation.” The Indian Oil Corporation had written to the petitioners calling upon them to implement the policy decisions of the Government. They had objected. After consideration of the matter, the Corporation had issued letter dated April 28, 2003. In this letter, it was observed that the dealers were bound to transfer the customers. They were further informed that in case of failure to comply with the directions the Corporation may be constrained to take action in accordance with the agreement and the marketing discipline guidelines. Aggrieved by these two orders, copies of which are at Exts.P6 and P7, the petitioners in O.P.Nos. 37638 of 2001 and 15397 of 2003 have approached this Court.

7. Mr. Gopakumaran Nair learned counsel for the petitioners in these cases has c