http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

CASE NO.: Writ Petition (civil)  171 of 2003

PETITIONER: Centre for Public Interest Litigation                    

RESPONDENT: Union of India & Anr.                                    

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/09/2003

BENCH: S. RAJENDRA BABU & G.P.MATHUR

JUDGMENT: J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

(WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 286 OF 2003)

RAJENDRA BABU,    J.    :

       In these two writ petitions filed in public interest  the petitioners are  calling in question the decision of the Government to sell majority of  shares in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL)  and Bharat  Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL)  to private parties without  Parliamentary approval or sanction as being contrary to and violative of  the provisions of the ESSO (Acquisition of Undertaking in India) Act, 1974,  the Burma Shell (Acquisition of Undertaking in India) Act, 1976 and Caltex  (Acquisition of Shares of Caltex Oil Refining India Limited and all the  Undertakings in India for Caltex India Limited) Act, 1977.

       The petitioners contended that in the Preamble to these  enactments it is provided that oil distribution business be vested in the  State so that the distribution subserves the common general good; that,  further, the enactments mandate that the assets and the oil distribution  business must vest in the State or in Government companies; that, they  are not opposed to the policy of disinvestment but they are only  challenging the manner in which the policy of disinvestment is being given  effect to in respect of HPCL and BPCL;  that, unless the enactments are  repealed or amended appropriately, the Government should be restrained  from proceeding with the disinvestment resulting in HPCL and BPCL  ceasing to be Government companies. It is further submitted that  disinvestment in HPCL and BPCL could result in the State losing control  over their assets and oil distribution business and, therefore, it is contrary  to the object of the enactments.   

       It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that  acquisition of HPCL and BPCL has taken place in pursuance of Article  39(b) of the Constitution; that, Article 39(b) subserves the object of  building a welfare State and an egalitarian social order; that, therefore,   these enactments have been passed with the object of giving effect to  Article 39(b) of the Constitution and the provisions of the enactment  provide for vesting of these undertakings in the State or in a Government  company; that, it is not open to the Government to disinvest the same  without first changing the law in this regard either by repealing the  enactments or by making appropriate changes by way of amendments in  the enactments.   The learned counsel further relied upon a decision of  Superior Court of Justice of Ontario between Brian Payne vs.  James  Wilson and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario dated April 19,  2002.  In that decision the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario declared  that any sale of the common shares of Hydro One Inc. held in the name of  Her Majesty in right of Ontario, whether pursuant to an initial public  offering of common shares or by way of a secondary offering, or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

otherwise, contravenes sub-section 48(1) of the Electricity Act, 1998.  In  that enactment Section 48(1) provides that the Lieutenant Governor in  Council may cause two corporations to be incorporated under the  Business Corporations Act and shares in those corporations may be  acquired and held in the name of Her Majesty in right of Ontario by a  member of the Executive Council designated by the Lieutenant Governor  in Council.   That order was appealed to the Court of  Appeal of Ontario.   During pendency of the appeal the Electricity Act, 1998 was amended by  replacing Section 48(1) thereof which expressly authorises the Minister of  Environment and Energy to dispose or otherwise deal with the shares of  the Hydro One Inc. and on that basis,  disposed of the appeal.   It was  further noticed in that decision that the reasons given by the Superior  Court of Justice cannot be read as a general pronouncement on the rights  of the Crown to deal with its assets; that, the learned Judge purported to  analyse a specific provision in a specific Act; that, he did so in the context  of the entirety of the Electricity Act, 1998,  the specific circumstances  surrounding its enactment and the comments of the Minister responsible  for that specific Act.   

       In the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the contesting  respondents, it is urged that the policy of disinvestment followed by the  Government of India has been upheld by this Court in BALCO  Employees’ Union   vs.  Union of India,  2002 (2) SCC 333; that the  decision to disinvestment and the implementation thereof is purely an  administrative decision relating to the economic policy of the State; that, it  is the prerogative of each elected Government to follow its own policy;   that,  the contention of the petitioners that prior approval of Parliament for  disinvesting Government’s holding in HPCL and BPCL is not necessary  since in the Acquisition Act setting up these companies there are no  restrictions on the disinvestment of these companies; that, the said  companies are registered under the Companies Act, 1956; that, the sale  of shares thereof  do not require Parliamentary approval;   that,  the  Memorandum and Articles of Association of the said companies also do  not contain any such restriction on transfer of shares;  that, the Acts in  question have worked themselves out after acquisition; that,  the  provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and Securities and Exchange  Board of India’s guidelines govern the companies in question under which  there are no restrictions on disinvesting Government share holding in  these companies;  that, there is no other statutory bar to such sale of  shares;  that, indeed, the Disinvestment Commission examined the issues  relating to disinvestment of IBP Co. Ltd.  and found that there was no  necessity of Parliamentary approval for its disinvestment;  that,  in fact,   shares in HPCL and BPCL were sold during the period 1991-92 to 1993- 94 through executive decisions; that, similarly, another public sector  undertaking,  Maruti Udyog Limited where acquisition was through an Act  of Parliament,  was disinvested through executive decisions over the last  two decades; that, even in those cases,  Parliamentary approval was not  required and the present case does not stand on a different footing as the  legal regime is similar;  that, in the enactments in question there are no   express or implied provisions restraining transfer of shares of HPCL or  BPCL;  that,  oil is an important sector of the economy and can grow only  with increasing efficiency and that the key to efficiency is competition and  disinvestment is an important instrument to achieve competition;   that,   after dismantling of the Administered Prices Mechanism with effect from  1.4.2002,  the Government’s main responsibility in the petroleum sector is  laying down the broad policy framework with the objectives of ensuring oil  security in the country and protecting the interests of consumers;  that,   under the ensuing market scenario in the oil sector,  there is a need for an  independent statutory regulatory mechanism to ensure competition,  encourage investment and protect consumers’ interest in the oil sector;    that,  steps have been taken to introduce in Parliament a Bill for  establishing a statutory regulatory authority;  that, two private parties viz.,  M/s Reliance Industries Limited and Essar Oil Limited,  have already been  granted authorisations to market transportation fuels and the Government  has already deregulated Exploration and Production, Refining and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

Pipelines;  that,   there is now widespread private sector participation in  Exploration and Production,  Refining and Pipelines;   that,  petroleum  sector and consumers are expected to benefit as a result of such  increased competition;  that, in this global economic scenario and the  need for greater private participation and private finance initiative,  disinvestment by Government of its share holding in State owned  companies is an instrument of economic policy accepted globally. It is also  brought to our notice by him that assets of the HPCL and BPCL were  acquired by the Central Government through Acts of Parliament but in  course of time of more than quarter of a century the assets have changed  their nature and today they bear hardly any resemblance to the assets  which were acquired under the statures;  that most of the present assets  of the two companies have been acquired after acquisition by means of  investment by the Government and those assets which were initially  acquired under statute have also been transformed into substantially  different assets;  that, data placed before the Court will clearly indicate  that the assets of HPCL and BPCL today have only a remote semblance  to the assets that had been acquired in 1974 and 1976 and a large  proportion of the assets  of the two companies have been added after  acquisition;  that,  even the assets that were taken over are no longer the  same as capital has been spent on them over the past several years;    that,  all these assets now belong to HPCL and BPCL which are  incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956;   that,  at the highest,  the  petitioner’s contention can be that the assets taken over cannot be  privatised but there clearly cannot be any requirement of Parliamentary  approval or sanction for disposal of assets added post-acquisition; that,  assets acquired by HPCL and BPCL either by acquisition through  legislation or through purchase have all now indistinguishably merged and  form the assets of the companies, disposal of which will be governed only  by the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and there is no need for any  Parliamentary approval or sanction.  In this context,  he relied upon the  decisions of this Court in Western Coalfields Limited   vs.  Municipal  Council, Birsinghpur Pali & Anr.,   1999 (3) SCC 290, and Municipal  Commissioner of Dum Dum Municipality & Ors.   vs.  Indian Tourism  Development Corporation & Ors.,   1995 (5) SCC 251, to indicate the  nature of holding by a Government company of the assets held by it.   

In addition, Shri Harish Salve contended that as per Section 7 of  the Act, the Central Government may vest the assets acquired by it in any  Government company  which becomes a complete owner of the acquired  assets and the Central Government has no further interest in the assets  so transferred to the companies.  The company holding the acquired  assets is like any other company incorporated under the Companies Act;  that such companies do not hold or administer these properties for and on  behalf of the Central Government; that there is no express or implied  prohibition in Section 7 of the Act on the transfer by the Central  Government of its shares in these companies;  that,  the only reason why  the assets were acquired by the Government by legislation was that part  of the assets included the marketing part of a foreign company; that the  parliamentary debates specifically show that the understanding was that  for the transfer of the shares and assets in an Indian company did not  require the enactment of a law.  That part of the assets belonging to the  two oil companies were obtained by negotiated purchase, rather than  through acquisition; that in the case of Burmah Shell, the assets belonging  to the Indian subsidiary were bought through a commercial transaction;  that, it cannot be gainsaid that the companies are free to sell off their  assets without any change in the law; that thus if the companies desire to  sell off at this distance of time the old machinery inherited by them (and  the value of which is a small fraction of its current net worth), there is no  legal embargo even if it amounts to the company no longer holding any of  the assets vested in after nationalisation; that if the contention of the  petitioners is accepted, the Central Government cannot sell its shares  even in such a company ; that, the definition of a Government Company  can be amended under the Companies Act generally and unrelated to  purposes nationalisation laws or can amalgamate these companies with

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

another company which may ultimately impact the Central Government’s  shareholding;that thus, there is nothing in law to prevent the Central  Government to amend the articles to provide that even if it continues to  hold 51%, it will not interfere in the management with the private strategic  partner who holds less shares; that the Government can attain the same  object in a manner more favourable to the Government â\200\223 viz. by selling off  its shares to reduce its holding; that, the submission that the policy  underlying a statute has to be determined from a reading of the preamble;  and that reference to the preamble of a statute can be had only when the  words of a statute are ambiguous and placed reliance on Smt. Sita Devi  (Dead) by LRs. v. State of Bihar  & Ors. 1995 Supp (1) SCC 670, para  2; that, the legislative policy as spelt out in the preamble which is to  ensure that the assets are so managed and the undertaking is so run to  ensure that its business remains vested in the State so that it can be run  for the public good; that even by transfer of a company other than  Government company the assets can be distributed in a manner that  would subserve the common good and "the common good" is a matter of  economic policy; that with the passage of time, the needs of the economy  may dictate changes â\200\223 a change cannot be condemned on the ground that  it would be deterimental to common good.  In this context, it is submitted  that the nationalisation was a part of a larger policy to bring in the oil  sector under Government control; that, the control of the oil sector was not  attained by a legislation but by administrative policy; that the prices of oil  products were also controlled by executive orders.  These have been all  modified by the Government in exercise of executive power; that in view of  these changes, the continuance of Government ownership of shares in  these companies is no longer considered to be necessary; that the  perception now is that the "common good" will best be subserved by the  privatisation of these undertakings; that this perception is a matter of  economic policy not amenable to judicial review.

We start our discussion of the matter from a constitutional angle.   When the government decides to set up a new company, the investment  for setting it up is shown as a ’new instrument of service’ and exhibited  separately in the demand for grants for the concerned Ministry while  presenting the Annual Budget.  Under Article 113(2) of the Constitution,  estimates are presented to Parliament in the form of demand for grants.   This fulfills the technical requirement of parliamentary approval when a  new company is set up. The President, in exercise of his powers conferred  under Article 113(2) of the Constitution has framed the General Financial  Rules, in which under Rule 71, it is provided that no expenditure shall be  incurred during a financial year on a new service not contemplated in the  Annual Budget for the year except after obtaining the supplementary grant  or an advance from the Contingency Fund.  Setting up a new public sector  company is defined as a ’new instrument of service’ for which approval of  Parliament is required for expenditure from the Consolidated Fund of  India.  If this is the background in which a new company is set up, can  such a company be dismantled without some kind of parliamentary  mandate? In this background we will now consider the case on hand.

       The pleadings filed and the arguments raised before this Court  indicate that the question for consideration before us is whether or not   there is any express or implied limitation on the Government to privatise  HPCL and BPCL.  It is no doubt true that the two companies are  Government companies and being instrumentalities of the State, they can  enter into contracts among other things, but question is whether this  power is circumscribed by any statute either expressly or by necessary  implication.   It is also clear that there is no provision in the Act expressly  stating that the Government shall, at all times, hold not less than 51% of  the paid-up capital of each corresponding new company, as has been  stated in the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings)  Act.  Nor is there any provision as in the Coal Mines Nationalisation Act,  1973 to the effect that "no person, other than the Central Government or a  Government company or a corporation owned, managed, or controlled by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

the Central Government shall carry on coal mining operation, in India, in  any form".    

       For the purpose of understanding the provisions we will set out the  relevant provisions of one of the enactments.  We make it clear that the  three enactments stated above in this case are identical. Preamble to the ESSO (Acquisition of Undertaking in India) Act,  1974 (hereinafter referred to as  ’the Act)  reads as follows :-

"An Act to provide for the acquisition and transfer of the right, title  and interest of ESSO Eastern Inc. in relation to its undertakings in  India with a view to ensuring co-ordinate distribution and utilisation  of petroleum products distributed and marketed in India by Esso  Eastern Inc. and for matters connected therewith or incidental  thereto.

WHEREAS Esso Eastern Inc., a foreign company, is carrying on,  in India the business of distribution and marketing petroleum  products manufactured by Esso Standard Refining Company of  India Limited and Lube India Limited,  and has, for that purpose,   established places of business at Bombay and other places in  India;

AND WHEREAS  it is expedient in the public interest that the  undertakings,  in India,  of Esso Eastern Inc.  should be acquired  in order to ensure that the ownership and control of the petroleum  products distributed and marketed in India by the said company   are vested in the State and thereby  so distributed as best to  subserve the common good;"

       Section 2(d) of the Act defines a ’Government company’  to mean  "a company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956."     Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 provides that a Government  company means "any company in which not less than 51% of the paid-up  share capital is held by the Central Government or by any State  Government or Governments partly by the Central Government or partly  by one or more State Governments and includes a company which is  subsidiary of the Government company".   Thus, holding of only 51% or  more of the shares in a company either by the Central Government or  State Government makes a company a Government company. Chapter II  of the Act provides for acquisition of the undertakings in India of Esso  companies.  Section 3 provides for transfer and vesting in the Central  Government of the undertakings of Esso in India.   Section 4  provides for  general effect of vesting.  Section 5 provides for the Central Government  to be lessee or tenant under certain circumstances. Section 6 deals with  removal of doubts.    For the present purpose, Section 7 of the Act is  important and it reads as  follows :-

"Section 7(1).  Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 3,  4 and 5, the Central Government may, if it is satisfied that a  Government company is willing to comply,  or has complied, with  such terms and conditions as that Government may think fit to  impose, direct, by notification,  that the right, title and interest and  the liabilities of Esso in relation to any undertaking in India shall,  instead of continuing to vest in the Central Government, vest in  the Government company either on the date of the notification or  on such earlier or later date (not being a date earlier than the  appointed day) as may be specified in the notification.

(2) where the right, title and interest and the liabilities or Esso in  relation to its undertakings in India vest in a Government company  under sub-section (1),  the government company shall, on and  from the date of such vesting,  be deemed to have become the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

owner, tenant or lessee, as the case may be, in relation to such  undertakings, and all the rights and liabilities of the Central  Government in relation to such undertakings shall, on and from  the date of such vesting,  be deemed to have become the rights  and liabilities, respectively, of the  Government company.

(3) the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 5 shall apply to a  lease or tenancy, which vests in the Government company, as  they apply to a lease or tenancy vested in the Central Government  and reference therein to the "Central Government"  shall be  construed as a reference to the Government company."

        Section 7 provides that subject to the conditions that may be  imposed by the Government, right, title and interest and liabilities of Esso  in relation to any undertaking in India can be vested in a Government  company and sub-section (2) thereof enables such Government company  to become the owner from such date.   

       In order to interpret the enactments in question it is necessary to  look to the Preamble to the Act.  The Preamble to the Act clearly stated  that acquisition is done "in order to ensure that the ownership and control  of petroleum products, distributed and marketed in India by the said  company are vested in the State and thereby so distributed as best to  subserve the common good." (emphasis supplied).   Preamble, though  does not control the statute, is an admissible aid to construction thereof.   The Act sets out that the assets of the undertaking shall vest in the  Government as provided under Section 3 of the Act.  However,  Section 7  of the Act enables the Government to transfer the undertaking to a  Government company as defined under Section 617 of the Companies  Act, 1956.  If the Act intended that the undertaking so vested in the  Government company can be transferred, wholly or partly, to any  company other than a Government company, there certainly would have  been an indication to that effect in the Act itself. The question, therefore, is  whether absence of specific provision as contained in the Banking  Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act or in the Coal  Mines Nationalisation Act, 1973 that the share holding shall always be  held by Government, will give a different complexion to these provisions.   When the provisions of the Act provide for vesting of the property of the  undertaking in the Government or a Government company, it cannot mean  that it enables the same being held by any other person, particularly in the  context that the object of the Act is that the ownership and control of the  petroleum products is distributed and marketed in India by the State or  Government company and that thereby so distributed as best to subserve  the common good.  The argument that there is no specific provision in the  Act as contained in the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of  Undertakings) Act or in the Coal Mines Nationalisation Act, 1973 does not  carry the matter any further because the idea embedded in those  provisions are implicit in the provisions of this enactment, as explained  earlier.  If disinvestment takes place and the company ceases to be a  Government company as defined under Section 617 of the Companies  Act, to say that it is still a Government company as contemplated under  Section 7 of the Act will be a fallacy.  What is contemplated under Section  7 of the Act is only a Government company and no other.  In relation to a  Government company Sections 224 to 233 are substituted and the audit of  the company takes place under the supervision and control of the  Comptroller & Auditor General of India who shall give effect to Section 224  (1-B)(1-C).  The Auditors shall submit a report to the Comptroller & Auditor  General of India and even when audit takes place, subject to his  instructions, Comptroller & Auditor General of India may also conduct  supplementary audit and a test audit.  Under Section 19(1) of Comptroller  & Auditor General’s (Duties, Powers and Conduct of Service) Act, 1971  audit of companies is to be conducted by him in terms of the Companies  Act.  Annual Reports on the working of affairs of the company is laid  before Parliament under Section 619(1)(b) of the Companies Act.   Such

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

control will be lost if a company ceases to be a Government company.   

Argument of Sri Harish Salve that a simple amendment of Section  617 of the Companies Act unrelated to the acquisition can alter the  position in law is only perceived but not attained and hence does not  require any examination.  He contended that to facilitate disinvestment of  the shares the public sector enterprises are allowed to list the shares on  Stock Exchanges, irrespective of the percentage of shares disinvested by  the Government and, therefore, submitted  that there is no need for the  Government to obtain Parliamentary approval.  Sales of shares of these  companies, though uninhibited, cannot be to such an extent so that the  substratum of the character of the Government companies is allowed to  be lost and converted into an ordinary company without being approved  by the General Body of shareholders and, in this case,  the Government.    Government, in turn,  is subject to the statutory limitations, to which we  have adverted to now.   Hence,  the argument begs the question which is  put in issue before us.  

       Again accretions to the Government company’s assets subsequent  to acquisition of the undertaking is an irrelevant factor in the context of the  question we are considering.  Here what is required to be seen is, not  which asset can be transferred or not, but whether the undertaking can  change its character from a Government company to ordinary company  without Parliamentary clearance in the light of the statute of acquisition.

       The debate as to whether a privatization law is necessary has been  going on all over the world.  This aspect has been discussed by Pierre  Guislain in his book entitled ’The Privatization Challenge’ published by the  World Bank.  The views of the learned Author are reproduced hereunder:

"Whether a country needs to enact a privatization law or can do  without one depends on several factors: the political situation and  legal traditions of the country, the scope of its privatization  program, and the nature of the enterprises to be privatized.  Two  different issues have to be addressed: does legislation need to be  enacted to authorize or facilitate privatization, and if so, should the  new provisions take the form of amendments to the pertinent laws  or be grouped together in a specific privatization law?

Some countries have opted to enact privatization laws even when  privatization could have been implemented without amending the  existing legislation.  This may have the advantage of mobilizing  explicit political support and commitment in favour of privatization  from the very start.  It may confer a stronger, clearer mandate on  the government and agencies in charge of implementing  privatization and make them more accountable.  A privatization  law also provides an opportunity to introduce changes in  legislation that, although not required for commencing the  process, may substantially facilitate it.  On the other hand, a  privatization law involves risks, including potentially long delays in  getting parliament approval, the sometimes excessively restrictive  scope of legislative provisions, and a tendency on the part of  some parliaments to interfere too much in the implementation of  privatization transactions.  Furthermore, special legislation may  not be needed for the transfer of the subsidiaries, participations, or  assets of State Owned Enterprises or public holding companies."  [pp.296-297]

The learned Author has further enunciated that if legislation is to be  brought for privatization, the same should reflect the broad political lines of  the privatization strategy and programme and that it should also endow  the Government or privatization agency with the required implementation  powers, and it should avoid restrictions that may unduly tie the hands of  the executing agencies and slow down the process.  The legislation must

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

allow adequate flexibility, in the choice of the privatization technique best  suited to each, while providing basic safeguards guaranteeing the integrity  and efficiency of the process.  Success of the programme hinges on,  among other things, a basic consensus among Parliament, Government,  and head of state on the scope and broad lines of the programme; a clear  mandate given to the executing agencies along with the powers necessary  for fulfilling that mandate; and unambiguous, flexible, and competitive  privatization procedures applied in a transparent manner by officials  accountable for their actions.

Apart from United Kingdom, there have been privatization  programmes in France and Italy in Europe.  Similarly massive programme  has been carried out in Argentina, Mexico and Brazil.  In these countries,  Privatization Acts have been enacted and numerous routes are adopted to  achieve privatization, some of which are illustrated below:

1.      A public offering of shares combined with a listing on the stock  exchange has brought share ownership to many millions of people and  have been the mechanism through which the Government’s desire to  widen share ownership has been brought to fruition. 2.      A trade sale to another private sector company or to a consortium and  such a transaction is inherently more private than a share offering and  some of the privatizations executed in this manner have faced some  criticism for being insufficiently open to public examination and debate.  3.      A ’management buy-out’ where the public sector entity’s management  team combine together to raise finance and, in conjunction with the  financier, purchase the business through a newly formed vehicle  company. 4.      A private placing of shares in a business with a group of investors.  5.      Making State assets available under concession so that the assets  may then be worked out by the concessionary.  6.      Special features of making provision for a golden share that is a  special share in the privatized entity which is retained by the  Government and which typically entrenches certain provisions within  the company’s articles of association in such a way as to prevent  specified changes occurring without the consent of the Government.   Such processes are adopted in certain businesses which are important  in defence and strategic grounds and so should be insulated from the  possibility of take over or, more generally, that businesses which are  new to the private sector should not be blown off course by an  unsolicited take over offer made early in their newly private lives.  This  special share can be a double-edged sword and it may give protection  to the Government in certain sensitive circumstances but leave the  Government with the risk of incurring the wrath of shareholders who  would be denied the right to accept what might be a very attractive  offer for their shares.        [Vide C.Graham and T. Prosser Golden Shares : Industrial Policy by Stealth]

7.      There were certain other categories where debt equity swaps were  followed.

We have an overview of the position world over on whether there is  any need for law regarding privatisation or what routes are to be adopted  for achieving the same.  Irrespective of those considerations, we base our  decision on the statutes with which we are concerned.

In the case of BALCO  (supra) executive action to disinvest was  not challenged probably due to the fact that there was no statutory  backing of the nature with which we are concerned in the present case.  In  the case of Maruti Udyog limited (supra), though acquired under an  enactment, there was no challenge to the same to disinvest merely by  executive action.  Thus, these cases stand on a different footing.            There is no challenge before this Court as to the policy of  disinvestment.  The only question raised before us whether the method

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

adopted by the Government in exercising its executive powers to disinvest  HPCL and BPCL without repealing or amending the law is permissible or  not.  We find that on the language of the Act such a course is not  permissible at all.

       In the result, we allow these petitions restraining the Central  Government from proceeding with disinvestment resulting in HPCL and  BPCL ceasing to be Government companies without appropriately  amending the statutes concerned suitably.