1. The scope of the 'NOC' to be issued by the District Authority under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 is the subject matter involved in all these writ petitions.

2. The crux of the contentions raised, except W.P.(C) No. 4863 of 2011, is that the petitioners are the existing retail dealers of petroleum products marketed/distributed by the three Oil Companies in the public sector, viz. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited, The Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. The said petitioners are stated as aggrieved of the steps being taken by the Petroleum Companies (Company in short) to appoint new retail outlet dealers in the respective areas, inviting applications in this regard through advertisements, without any regard to the feasibility or the potential of the area and in turn, affecting the returns of the petitioners quite adversely. It is contended that, because of the unhealthy competition among the Companies in setting up more and more new units, the entire business is plunging into losses, putting it quite detrimental to the investments made by the petitioners and also without any regard to the 'public money' being invested by the Companies. It is in the said circumstances, that the State Government has intervened, convening a meeting of all concerned, arriving at a decision and issuing a Circular, stipulating certain norms fixing the minimum viability limit as 250 Kilo litres per month, lest, the business of the existing dealers should be affected while granting NOC to the new retail outlets in the area. Some of the writ petitioners challenge the NOCs issued by the District Authorities without any regard to the above norms, while the others seek for a direction to intercept the proceedings pursuant to the advertisements made by the Oil Companies inviting applications for retail outlets and the on-going steps of the District Authorities under the Petroleum Rules to issue the NOC.

3. Some of the writ petitions have been already admitted and the service is complete. In some cases, it has been made clear that, the issuance of NOC and the dealership appointments will be subject to the result of the writ petitions. In W.P.(c) No. 30337 of 2010, such an interim order was passed on 01.10.2010 and thereafter, as per order dated 10.12.2010, it was clarified that the Legal Metrology Department can proceed with the steps to verify and 'stamp' the instruments/measuring units and to certify the same. Later, as per interim order dated 18.01.2011 in I.A. 517 of 2011 (seeking to modify the interim order), it was made clear that, the orders passed by this Court never did stand in the way of granting NOC or in commissioning the Unit commencing the operation, but for making the same subject to the result of the writ petition.

4. Among the writ petitions, as mentioned herein before, W.P. (C) 4863 of 2011 alone stands on a different footing, the same having been filed by the prospective new comer, in favour of whom Ext. P2 NOC dated 17.09.2010 has been issued by the District Authority, in spite of which, Ext. P6 'stop memo' dated 25.10.2010 was issued by the Village Officer, referring to Exts. P8/P9 norms therein issued by the State. This in turn is under challenge, raising many a ground that the State Government or the Authorities under the State do not have any right, power, jurisdiction or competence to issue Exts. P8 and P9; that the petitioner has already invested lakhs of Rupees in connection with the setting up of the unit after receipt of Ext. P1 letter of indent dated 13.04.2010 issued by the 4th respondent Oil Company and Ext. P2 NOC issued by the District Authority thereafter; simultaneously pointing out that, the competent authority to prescribe the norms, if at all any, is only the 'Central Government'; that the dealership arrangement is to be finalized in tune with the relevant provisions of the Act/Rules framed by the Central Government and that there is absolutely no