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