The judgment established the principle that oil companies' actions in dealership allotment and policy changes were in accordance with the Petroleum Act, 1934 and the Petroleum Rules, 2002, and rejected claims of legitimate expectations and promissory estoppel against the oil companies.

Heard both sides. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are the land owners and have given their lands for running retail outlets of the Indian Oil Corporation or Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. or IBP Co. Ltd., as the case may be, and are demanding grant of regular retail outlet dealership on the basis of land owners category. All these matters were heard on 20.11.2009 and orders were reserved.

2. In W.P.No.19757 of 2007, the said writ petitioner is one Sathyamangalam Lorry Owners Association represented by its President, seeking for a writ of declaration declaring that action of respondents 2 to 4 in not applying the policy dated 10. 2002 in ref. Policy/MDPM No.319/02 in respect of the retail outlet situated at Satyamangalam and further action in seeking to apply the revised policy of the first respondent dated 9. 2006 regarding the appointment of regular dealer for the said outlet as arbitrary, illegal, colourable exercise of power, violative of fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the policy of the first respondent dated 10. 2002. The said writ petition was heard on 211. 2009 and orders were reserved. A common order is being passed in all these writ petitions.

3. In many of the cases, the lease agreements have been entered into between the parties. Allotment of outlets was also made in favour of the petitioners. The lease has also been registered on several dates. The petitioners submitted that they were the owners of lands, in which retail outlets are operated. The Oil Companies, after taking the lands on lease, awarded dealership to the owners. The petitioners land were situated in vantage position. The lands were levelled with considerable extent to locate the retail outlets. The lease has also been signed for a long period, i.e. 15 to 20 years. After entering into the lease deeds, No Objection Certificates were obtained from the District Revenue Officer. Licence from the Fire Service, Electricity Supply from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and licence from the department of Explosives were also obtained.

.4. It was also stated that the petitioners were directed to get appropriate clearance from the authorities under various labour enactments. It is only on complying with these conditions, a retail outlet is being operated either by the petitioners or their nominees, who are their close relatives. They have incurred considerable expenses. It is only on the basis of their implementing all these conditions, the retail outlets were allotted to be run by the petitioners. They were under the fond hope that they will be made as regular or permanent dealers. However, unlike in the past where the land owners who were allotted to run retail outlets, were made as regular dealers, the petitioners were not made as regular dealers, but kept as Company Owned Company Operated (COCO) retail outlets and that too on nominal rents being given to land owners.

5. The petitioners by leasing out their lands to the Petroleum companies on long lease and by the promise held out under various guidelines, have acquired a legal right and have claimed that they should be recognised as regular dealers. But, instead of recognising their vested right, the Oil companies were calling for fresh applications in respect of those retail outlets. This is contrary to the guidelines for selection of retail outlet dealers. Therefore, it was challenged on the ground that the oil companies cannot discriminate between one set of COCO operators and others, especially after commissioning of the outlets. In the lease agreements which the petitioners have entered into, were signed with the hope that the dealership will be issued in the name of the petitioners. Therefore, the respondents are estopped from giving dealership to any other persons.

6. It was during the month of October/November, 2003, the dealership policy was introduced and they commissioned new outlets. The petitione