MUKUND SWARUP MISHRA Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Bench: C.K. THAKKER,R.V. RAVEENDRAN, , ,
Case number: Transfer Case (civil) 100 of 2002
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
TRANSFERRED CASE NO.100 OF 2002
Mukund Swarup Mishra … Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India & Ors. … Respondents
WITH
T.C. Nos.101 to 108 of 2002, T.C. No.57 of 2006, SLP (C) No.11556/2002, SLP (C) No.11568/2002 and SLP (C) No.1394/2003.
J U D G M E N T
R. V. Raveendran J.
The Indian Express in its issues dated 2nd to 5th August, 2002
carried news reports alleging irregularities in allotment of Retail Outlets,
LPG distributorship and SKO-LDO dealerships, by selection of
relatives/associates of political functionaries. Questions were also raised
in the Parliament in regard to the alleged irregularities. In view of the said
controversy, on a review on 5.8.2002, the Prime Minister of India
directed the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas to initiate steps to
1
cancel all allotments made on the basis of recommendations of Dealer
Selection Boards from January, 2000 till that date. In pursuance of it, a
formal order dated 9.8.2002 was issued by the Government of India,
Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, cancelling all allotments made in
regard to the retail outlets, LPG distributorship and SKO - LDO
dealerships on the recommendations of the Dealer Selection Boards since
1.1.2000. The relevant portion of the said order reads thus:
“Having considered the facts and circumstances as also to ensure fair play in action, the Government in the public interest have now decided that all allotments made with respect to retail outlets. LPG distributorships and SKO LDO dealerships on the recommendations of the Dealer Selection Boards since 1st January 2000 be cancelled. it has further been decided that all annulled petrol pumps, LPG distributorships and kerosene dealerships may be auctioned on the basis of competitive bidding.
2. You may, in view of the above, take necessary action in the matter to:
(a) cancel all the petrol pumps LPG distributorships and kerosene dealerships made on the recommendations of DSBs since 1.1.2000 forthwith.
(b) make alternate arrangements to that consumers are not put to any difficulties till the appointment of new dealers/distributors and
(c) settle the above petrol pumps, LPG distributorships and kerosene dealerships on the basis of auction through competitive bidding modalities for which be worked out by the Government.
3. The above decision will not be applicable to the allottees under Operation Vijay scheme."
2
2. The said order resulted in the cancellation of 3760 merit panels
prepared by Dealer Selection Boards including 2248 cases where
agreements had been entered between the oil companies and the selected
allottees and dealerships/distributorship had become operational. The said
order was challenged by several allottees in different High Courts. All
those writ petitions were transferred to this Court and they were disposed
of (except these cases) by order dated 20.12.2002 (reported in Onkar Lal
Bajaj v. Union of India - 2003 (2) SCC 673). By the said judgment, this
Court quashed the order dated 9.8.2002 except in regard to 413 cases
which were named in the newspapers as cases involving irregularities.
This Court appointed a Committee comprising Mr. Justice S.C. Agrawal,
a retired Judge of this Court and Mr. Justice P.K. Bahri, a retired Judge of
Delhi High Court to examine the said 413 cases and submit its report.
This Court instructed the Committee that if on a preliminary examination
of the facts and records, it formed an opinion that the allotment was made
on merits and not as a result of political connection or patronage or other
extraneous considerations, it would be open to the Committee not to
proceed with the probe in detail. This Court postponed the consideration
of those cases, till receipt of the report of the Committee.
3
3. The Committee issued notices to the concerned parties, sought
responses, gave due opportunity of hearing, considered the material
produced and submitted a detailed report. In all there were 417 cases (413
cases plus 4 missing cases which were subsequently traced) before the
Committee. Out of 417 cases, three were found to be repetitions. Five
cases were pending consideration in court. The Committee therefore
considered the remaining 409 cases. It opined that in 297 cases, the
selections and allotments were not on merits and were as a result of
political connection/patronage and/or extraneous consideration. In the
remaining 112 cases, the Committee was of the opinion that the selection
and allotments were made on merit and did not call for interference.
4. Several allottees filed objections to the Committee report and
prayed for its rejection. This Court by judgment dated 12.1.2007 rejected
the objections to the said report with the following observations :
“In our opinion learned amicus curiae is right that the Committee has considered in detail individual cases and submitted the report. This Court therefore would consider a complaint of an allottee who can successfully put forth his complaint and satisfy the court that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding of the Committee that the allotment was not on merit, was not correct but only in those individual cases the court would consider him and grant relief to such applicant. It however cannot be said that the
4
report of the Committee was without power, authority or jurisdiction or was uncalled for and liable to be ignored.”
By the said judgment, this Court also considered and disposed of the
cases relating to States of Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Chhatisgarh,
Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, Punjab and Haryana. Cases of other
States were adjourned for hearing. The cases relating to other States have
subsequently been heard individually and they are being disposed of by
this order.
Madhya Pradesh :
5. In regard to the State of Madhya Pradesh, 29 cases were referred to
the Committee. In 8 cases the Committee found that the allotment was on
merits and approved them. It found that the selection and allotment in the
remaining 21 cases was not on merit. Out of the said 21 cases, 15 allottees
have filed applications objecting to the findings of the Committee.
Remaining 6 allottees have not challenged the findings of the Committee.
We have examined the 15 cases where objections have been filed by way
of applications.
5
5.1) In regard to the following 13 cases, we accept the findings of the
Committee that the allotments were not on merits, for the reasons
recorded in the report and uphold their cancellation :
S.No .
Case No. Name of allottee Product/Locatio n
1. 207/MP/2003 Saket Sharma (LPG – Biora) 2. 213/MP/2003 Smt. Saroj Singh
Chauhan (LPG-Shahpur)
3. 216/MP/2003 Mukesh Singh (LPG-Mungaoli) 4. 219/MP/2003 Devender Kumar Verma R/O Narmada
Nagar 5. 220/MP/2003 Rajender Kumar Jain (LPG/Garoth) 6. 222/MP/2003 Smt. Anita Gupta (LPG/Khilchipur) 7. 224/MP/2003 Yogesh Khandelwal (LPG/Budni) 8. 225/MP/2003 Vijay Pratap Singh
Parihar (LPG/Datia)
9. 227/MP/2003 Anita Raghuvanshi (LPG/Isagarh) 10. 228/MP/2003 Pradeep Kumar Kankar (LPG/Bhind) 11. 230/MP/2003 Gopal Parmer (LPG/Agar) 12. 232/MP/2003 Deepal Kumar Agarwal (RO/Asirgarh) 13. 235/MP/2003 Smt. Sudha Aggarwal (RO/Shivpuri)
5.2) The remaining two cases [Trivendi Devi (Case No.211/MP/2003 –
LPG/Ichhawar) and Smt. Rohit Samant (Case No.221/MP/2003 –
LPG/Harsud)] were borderline cases, where two views were possible. In
view of it, the allotments in their favour are not disturbed. We therefore
allow their applications and set aside the cancellation of their allotment.
Bihar :
6
6. In regard to the State of Bihar, 32 cases were referred to the
Committee. In 6 cases the Committee found that the allotment was on
merits and approved them. In the remaining 26 cases, the Committee
found that the allotments were not on merit. Out of those 26 cases, 20
allottees have filed applications objecting to the findings of the
Committee. Two applications have been filed by non-allottees and they
are rejected as not maintainable. We have examined the 20 cases where
objections have been filed.
6.1) In regard to the following 11 cases, we accept the findings of the
Committee that the allotments were not on merits, for the reasons
recorded in the report and uphold their cancellation :
S. No .
Case No. Name of allottee Product/Location
1. 165/Bihar/20 03
Nitu Prasad (LPG – Pachrukha)
2. 167/Bihar/20 03
Ashok Kumar Yadav (LPG-Narpatganj
3. 168/Bihar/20 03
Pushpa Lata (LPG – Sonbarsa)
4. 170/Bihar/20 03
Hiran Kumari (RO - Ramgarh Bazar)
5. 174/Bihar/20 03
Neelam Kumari (SKO/LDO- Waris Nagar)
6. 176/Bihar/20 03
Raj Kumar Singh (RO - Videswar)
7. 177/Bihar/20 03
Krishna Yadav (RO/Karuamore)
7
8. 180/Bihar/20 03
Kameshwar Prasad Singh (LPG-Bihiya)
9. 186/Bihar/20 03
Radha Krishan Prasad Singh
(LPG-Bakhri)
10. 190/Bihar/20 03
Aarti Kumari (RO/Fatuwah)
11. 192/Bihar/20 03
Nitin Kumar (RO/Bihta)
6.2) In the following 8 cases, no political connection was found or even
if there was some political connection, they were borderline cases where
two views were possible :
S.No .
Case No. Name of allottee Product/Location
1. 166/Bihar/200 3
Shiv Shankar Chaudhary
(RO - Benipur)
2. 171/Bihar/200 3
Dr. Usha Viyarthi (RO - Datiyana)
3. 182/Bihar/200 3
Sarita.Singh (LPG – Arrah)
4. 183/Bihar/200 3
Aditya Kumar (RO - Punpun)
5. 184/Bihar/200 3
Bikash Prasad Singh (RO - Khaira)
6. 189/Bihar/200 3
Vijay Kumar (RO - Lauriya)
7. 191/Bihar/200 3
Kameshwar Chaupal (RO – Bihta)
8. 193/Bihar/200 3
Raju Raj (RO - Nawadah Town)
We therefore allow their applications and set aside the cancellation of
allotment.
8
6.3) In the case of Bimal Kumar Jain (Case No.173/Bihar/2003 – RO/
Budhmarg), we are informed that a civil case (Title Suit No.106/2001), a
criminal proceedings and SLP(c) No.14339/2004 are pending. In view of
the above, we do not propose to decide the said case. The validity of the
allotment will have to be decided in the pending proceedings.
Andhra Pradesh :
7. In regard to the State of Andhra Pradesh, 44 cases were referred to
the Committee. In 19 cases the Committee found that the allotments were
on merits and approved them. One case was not considered on account of
pendency of court proceedings. In 24 cases, allotment was found to be not
on merit. Out of said 24 cases, 20 allottees have filed applications
objecting to the findings of the Committee. Subsequently, in one case --
C.H. Jayashree (Case No.369/AP/2003), the objection to the Committee’s
report was withdrawn. Other four have not challenged the findings of the
Committee. Three non-allottees have filed applications and they are
rejected as not maintainable. We have examined the 20 cases where
objections have been filed by way of applications.
9
7.1) In regard to the following 11 cases, we accept the findings of the
Committee that the allotments were not on merits, for the reasons
recorded in the report and uphold their cancellation:
S. No .
Case No. Name of allottee Product/Location
1. 340/AP/2003 G.Srinivas Rao (R/O Sadashivpet) 2. 341/AP/2003 K. Anil Reddy (LPG-Parigi) 3. 343/AP/2003 V. Arun Kumar (R/O Nalgonda) 4. 345/AP/2003 Chada Sunita Devi (R/O Hanamkarda) 5. 348/AP/2003 Saraswati (R/O Torrur) 6. 350/AP/2003 G. Nagaraju (R/O Parvathgiri) 7. 365/AP/2003 S.Malla Reddy (R/O Bowenpally-Kompally) 8. 366/AP/2003 N. Sailaja (R/O Habsiguda) 9. 369/AP/2003 C.H. Jayashree (RO/Warrangal) 10. 370/AP/2003 A. Chandrashekar Rao (RO/Vemulawada) 11. 375/AP/2003 A. Jayapal (R/O Karimnagar)
7.2) In the following nine cases, no political connection was found or
even if some political connection was found, they were borderline cases
where two views are possible:
S.No .
Case No. Name of allottee Product/Location
1. 335/AP/20 03
B.Sujatha (RO - Ghanpur Road)
2. 338/AP/20 03
M.Shailaja (LPG - Devarkanda)
3. 346/AP/20 03
B P Pushpa Lata (RO/Miyanpur)
4. 347/AP/20 03
J.Sunanda Yadav (RO/Patencheru)
5. 354/AP/20 03
N.Renuka (RO/Hayath Nagar NH-9)
10
6. 355/AP/20 03
Deendayal Rao (LPG - Karim Nagar)
7. 358/AP/20 03
G.Mahendra Reddy
(RO/Bhainsa Town)
8. 364/AP/20 03
Ramagaliah Anjaiah
(RO/Bachannapet)
9. 372/AP/20 03
Kethavat Bheeiya (RO/Venkateshwar Nagar, Nalgonda)
We therefore allow their applications and set aside the cancellation of
allotment.
7.3) We may notice here that in the case of A.Chandrashekhar Rao
(Case No.370/AP/2003), the Committee did not find any political
connection. But it found that there were errors in aggregating the marks.
In regard to the selected candidate A.Chandrashekhar Rao, the Chairman,
and Members 1 and 2 had awarded 65, 62 and 58 marks respectively, the
grand total being 185. But there was mistake in totalling the marks
allotted by Members 1 and 2. The total of marks awarded by Member 1
was 42 and total of the marks awarded by Member 2 was 60. Thus the
grand total was 167 marks instead of 185 in the case of A. Chandrashekar
Rao. In regard to M. Praveen placed second in the panel, the Chairman,
Members 1 and 2 had awarded marks of 55, 52 and 55, the grant total
being 162. While the totalling of marks allotted by the Chairman and
Member 1 was correct, there was a mistake in totalling the marks allotted
11
by Member 2. It ought to have been 65. When that is corrected, the grand
total of the marks of M. Praveen would be 172 instead of 162. In the case
of Gampa Srinivas Gupta placed third in the panel, the Committee found
that the Chairman, Members 1 and 2 had allotted 47, 56 and 51, the grand
total being 154. The total marks awarded by Chairman should have been
43 instead of 47 and consequently the grand total would be 150 instead of
154. It would thus be seen that the person getting the highest marks
would be M.Praveen with 172 marks as against Dr. A.Chandrashekhar
Rao who was shown as selected but who secured only 167. In view of the
above, the Committee found that the allottee A.Chandrashekhar Rao was
not the first candidate and should not have been recommended for
allotment. As this is a case of mistaken calculation, it is open to the
allottee A. Chandershekhar Rao, if he is so advised, to seek return of
possession of the land as a consequence of cancellation.
Karnataka :
8. In regard to the State of Karnataka, 24 cases were referred to the
Committee. In 2 cases the Committee found that the allotments were on
merits and approved them. In remaining 22 cases, allotments were found
to be not on merit. Out of the said 22 cases, 18 allottees have filed
12
applications objecting to the findings of the Committee. Remaining four
have not challenged the findings of the Committee. One non-allottee has
filed an application which is rejected as not maintainable. We have
examined 18 cases where objections have been filed by way of
applications.
8.1) In regard to the following sixteen cases, we accept the findings of
the Committee that the allotments were not on merits, for the reasons
recorded in the report, and uphold their cancellation :
S. No .
Case No. Name of allottee Product/Location
1. 387/Kar./200 3
Suchitra S. Patwardhan (LPG - Kagwad)
2. 388/Kar./200 3
Srikant S. Katwe (LPG - Hubli)
3. 389/Kar./200 3
K V Swaroop (LPG - Chintamani)
4. 390/Kar./200 3
D N Jeevaraju (RO/Jayapura, Chickmaglur)
5. 391/Kar./200 3
A. Sasikala (LPG - Mysore)
6. 392/Kar./200 3
Mohan S Shettar (RO/Hubli)
7. 393/Kar./200 3
D.Savitri (RO/Basavakalyan)
8. 395/Kar./200 3
C.Munikrishna (RO/Bangalore Urban)
9. 396/Kar./200 3
B V Rajshekhar Reddy (LPG - Dommasandra)
10. 398/Kar./200 3
S.Manjula (RO/Chikkasanna Cross Bangalore)
11. 399/Kar./200 3
Sunil Venkatesh Hegde (LPG - Dandeli)
13
12. 400/Kar./200 3
Parvatamma (RO/Sirwar, Raichur)
13. 405/Kar./200 3
S. Prakash (RO/Bangalore Urban-II)
14. 406/Kar./200 3
B J Shantamma (LPG - Anekal)
15. 408/Kar./200 3
Bharathi Shetty (RO/Soraba)
16. 410/Kar./200 3
Shobha Lakshmipati (RO/Jala Hobli Bangalore)
8.2) In the following two cases, no political connection was found or
even if some political connection was found, they were borderline cases,
where two views are possible:
S.No .
Case No. Name of allottee Product/Location
1. 394/Kar./2003 S.A. Mahesh (LPG Mysore) 2. 407/Kar./2003 Hegde Nagapati Anant (RO/Gullapur, UK)
We therefore allow their applications and set aside the cancellation of the
allotments.
Maharashtra :
9. In regard to the State of Maharashtra, 74 cases were referred to the
Committee. In 21 cases the Committee found that the allotments were on
merits and approved them. In remaining 53 cases, allotments were not
approved as the Committee found that they were not made on merits. Out
14
of the 53 cases, 30 allottees have filed applications objecting to the
findings of the Committee. Two applications have been filed by non-
allottees and they are rejected as not maintainable. We have examined the
30 cases where objections have been filed by way of applications.
9.1) In regard to the following 22 cases, we accept the findings of the
Committee that the allotments were not on merits, for the reasons
recorded in the report and uphold their cancellation:
S. No .
Case No. Name of allottee Product/Location
1. 259/Mah./20 03
Jayant P. Dandekar (RO/Safale, Thane)
2. 261/Mah./20 03
Shivish Bhandudas Kirad (LPG - Hadispur, Pune)
3. 265/Mah./20 03
Manoj K Dhore (LPG – Pimpri, Pune)
4. 271/Mah./20 03
Anirudha Vasant Pujari (LPG - Sangola, Solapur)
5. 272/Mah./20 03
Sarala Shivaji Rao (RO/Khandvi, Solapur)
6. 275/Mah./20 03
Vijia S. Sancheti (LPG-Lonar/Buidhana)
7. 276/Mah./20 03
Hitender G.Ahir (RO/ Ghughus, Chandrapur)
8. 278/Mah./20 03
Sapra Sudhi Mangantiwar (LPG/ Ballarpur, Chandrapur)
9. 280/Mah./20 03
V K Nakade (LPG - Chimur, Chandrapur)
10. 283/Mah./20 03
Girish Navnath Avhad (RO/Wagholi, Pune)
11. 288/Mah./20 03
Milind H. Deshpande (LPG - Sholapur)
12. 293/Mah./20 03
Anasuya R. Kamath (RO/Mumbai)
15
13. 295/Mah./20 03
Savita S Jadhao (SKO - LDO Washim)
14. 298/Mah./20 03
Vishwanath R Dange (RO/Palus, Sangli)
15. 305/Mah./20 03
Prashant D.Mahajan (RO/Maltekdi, Amravati)
16. 310/Mah./20 03
Bala Saheb Mahadeo K.Shirsagar
(LPG - Bhum, Osmanabad)
17. 311/Mah./20 03
Vikram Ganpatrao Gojamgunde
(RO/Latur)
18. 312/Mah./20 03
Anita O.Pande (RO/Hingria Road, Nagpur)
19. 313/Mah./20 03
Prasanna P. Paturkar (LPG – Amravati-A)
20. 321/Mah./20 03
Jyoti Pradeep Kendre (RO/Ambajogal, Beed)
21. 325/Mah./20 03
Dhananjay Pandit Rao Munde
(RO/Shirur, Beed)
22. 332/Mah./20 03
Swapnil R. Khanorkar (LPG - Bhandara)
9.2) In the following eight cases, no political connection was found or
even if some political connection was found, they were borderline cases,
where two views are possible:
S. No .
Case No. Name of allottee Product/Location
1. 264/Mah./20 03
Ravindra Babu Rao Yedke
(LPG Bidkin, Aurangabad)
2. 269/Mah./20 03
Amit Bhagwant Rao Sude
(SKO - LDO Aurangabad)
3. 270/Mah./20 03
Sachin Shankar Rao Yadav
(LPG - Hadaspur, Pune)
4. 284/Mah./20 03
Shailendra D. Tupe (SKO-LDO Velhe Taluk, Pune)
5. 286/Mah./20 03
Sunil M. Gudhe (SKO-LDO Anjangaon, Amravati)
6. 291/Mah./20 03
Mukund N Kulkarni (RO/Palm Beach, Nerul, Thane)
16
7. 316/Mah./20 03
Yogesh Dilip Godambe (RO/Wadala, Mumbai)
8. 324/Mah./20 03
Kiran J. Kasat (RO/Bramhawadi, Beed)
We therefore allow their applications and set aside the cancellation of
allotments.
9.3) It should be noted that in the case of Kiran J. Kasat (Case
No.324/Mah./2003) the allotment was challenged by the third candidate
in the panel in W.P. No.1084/2002 before the Aurangabad Bench of
Bombay High Court which has been transferred to this Court and
renumbered as Transferred Case No.57/2006. The Committee has
considered the case in detail and upheld the allotment. We accept the
Committee’s finding and consequently reject the challenge in T.C.
No.57/2006.
Uttar Pradesh :
10. In regard to the State of Uttar Pradesh, 43 cases were referred to the
Committee. In 9 cases the Committee found that the allotments were on
merits and approved them. It did not consider one case as it was subject
matter of a court proceedings. In the remaining 33 cases, the Committee
17
found that the allotment was not on merit. Out of said 33 cases, 29
allottees have filed applications objecting to the findings of the
Committee. There are 14 applications by non-allottees and they are
rejected as not maintainable. We have examined the 29 cases where
objections have been filed by way of applications.
10.1) In regard to the following twenty cases, we accept the findings of
the Committee that the allotments were not on merits, for the reasons
recorded in the report and uphold their cancellation :
S. No .
Case No. Name of allottee Product/Location
1. 120/UP/2003 Kamlesh Kumar (RO/Mangudila Shauraha, Ambedkar Nagar)
2. 121/UP/2003 Anant Ram Jaiswal
(RO/Kumarganj, Faizabad)
3. 122/UP/2003 Shashibala Bharti (RO/Memura) 4. 123/UP/2003 Anil Kumar Misra (RO/Amity Bus Stand, Sultanpur) 5. 124/UP/2003 Purnima Verma (RO/Sidhauli, Sitapur) 6. 125/UP/2003 Umakant Misra (LPG - Fatehpur, Barabanki) 7. 126/UP/2003 Geeta Pandey (LPG - Azamgarh) 8. 128/UP/2003 Balchandra (LPG - Kabrai, Mahoba) 9. 129/UP/2003 Arpna Misra (RO/Itaunja, Lucknow) 10. 133/UP/2003 Manoj Bhan Singh
Verma (LPG - Orai, Jalaun)
11. 136/UP/2003 Ratan Lal Ahirwar (RO/Baruasagar, Jhansi) 12. 139/UP/2003 Ram Adhar (LPG - Faizabad) 13. 140/UP/2003 Ritesh Kumar
Singh (LPG - Dariyabed, Barabanki)
14. 141/UP/2003 Asish Kumar Tripathi
(RO/Karebhar, Sultanpur)
15. 142/UP/2003 Vandana (RO/Zaidpur, Barabanki) 16. 149/UP/2003 Geeta Dwivedi (RO/Narayani, Banda)
18
17. 152/UP/2003 Kameshwar Singh (LPG - Rudrapur, Deoria) 18. 155/UP/2003 Rani Shahi (RO/Tamkuhiraj Khushi Nagar) 19. 158/UP/2003 Munni Gupta (RO/Beberu, Banda) 20. 161/UP/2003 Pratibha Tripathi (RO/Jahanganj, Farrukhabad)
10.2) In the following nine cases, no political connection was found or
even if there was some political connection, they were borderline cases
where two views are possible.
S.No .
Case No. Name of allottee Product/Location
1. 127/UP/20 03
Manisha Singh (RO/Balia)
2. 130/UP/20 03
Alok Kumar Verma (LPG – Chhibramau, Kannauj)
3. 131/UP/20 03
Suman Devi (RO/ Mehandipur, Barabanki)
4. 134/UP/20 03
Baij Nath Rawat (RO/Nai Sadak Tiraha, Barabanki)
5. 137/UP/20 03
Poonam Singh Chaudhary
(LPG - Nanpura, Bahraich)
6. 145/UP/20 03
Chandramani Kant Singh
(LPG - Bhinga, Shrawasti)
7. 146/UP/20 03
Ram Kumar Verma (RO/Barbar Town, Lakhimpur Kheri)
8. 151/UP/20 03
Anand Kumar (RO/Chilwaria, Bahraich)
9. 157/UP/20 03
Saroj Agnihotri (RO/Jhansi Town)
We therefore allow the above nine applications and set aside the
cancellation of allotments.
19
11. The Committee’s report in regard to other cases is accepted. The
approval by the Committee in respect of 112 allotments is accepted and
consequently, the cancelling of allotments in those cases is set aside.
Wherever the Committee has not approved the allotment as not being on
merits, and the allottees have not filed objections to the Committee’s
report or filed objections belatedly (which were not accepted), the non-
approval of selection/allotment are upheld.
12. The four public sector oil companies (IOCL, BPCL, HPCL and
IBPCL) shall take appropriate consequential action. T.C. Nos.100 to 108
of 2002 and T.C. No.57 of 2006 are disposed of accordingly.
13. Before parting with the matter, we wish to place on record, our
appreciation for the excellent assistance rendered by Mr. Gopal
Subramanium, amicus curiae (and the band of young advocates who
assisted him) by thorough preparation and presentation of the facts of the
individual cases. The four petroleum companies shall remunerate him
appropriately, having regard to the enormous workload undertaken by
him.
20
SLP [C] Nos.11556 and 11568 of 2002 :
These SLPs by the Indian Oil Corporation and by the allottee (Anurag
Singh Thakur) of retail outlet at Mand, District Jallandhar, challenge the
judgment dated 21.3.2002 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, setting
aside the selection in a writ petition filed by one Manjit Singh Virk.
These SLPs are ordered to be delinked and heard separately.
SLP [C] No.1394 of 2003 :
This SLP by a non-allottee challenging the allotment in favour of one
Manoj Kumar S.Navale, is ordered to be delinked and heard separately.
…………………………J [C. K. Thakker]
………………………….J [R. V. Raveendran]
New Delhi; November 7, 2008.
21