As per case facts, appellants challenged the grant of a new retail fuel dealership by HPCL to respondent no.6 on a State Highway, alleging violation of legitimate expectation and Article ... 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. They contended that their dealership agreement's Clause 7, allowing HPCL to appoint other dealers, was unconscionable, and the new license violated their right to trade. HPCL argued that existing guidelines apply only to National Highways, not State Highways, and that competition serves public interest. The question arose whether granting a rival dealership on a State Highway, where no specific distance regulations exist, infringed the appellants' fundamental rights or legitimate expectation. Finally, the Court dismissed the appeal, holding that no legitimate expectation was violated as no "established practice" for distance restrictions on State Highways was shown. Clause 7 was deemed not unconscionable, and Article 19(1)(g) does not grant a right to monopolize business or prevent competition. The lack of restrictions on State Highways is a policy choice promoting competition and public interest, and HPCL's action was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable, warranting no judicial interference.