http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: SHRI MAHINDER KUMAR GUPTA ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

DATE OF JUDGMENT22/09/1994

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. VENKATACHALA N. (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  (1)  85        JT 1995 (1)    11  1994 SCALE  (4)803

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: ORDER 1.    This appeal arises from the judgment and order of  the Division  Bench of Delhi High Court in Civil  Writ  Petition No.3165  of 1991 dated 1.11.1991.  Writ  Petition  No.253/93 was  filed  by  an  Association and also  a  Partner  as  an individual.   Writ  Petition  64/1994  was  filed   by   the petitioner  who  is  a widow and daughter  of  a  dealer  in petroleum products. These matters relate to the contracts of dealership   or   distributorship  of   petroleum   products awardable  by the Government of India Undertakings.  In  the first  case,  admittedly,  the  appellant’s  son-in-law   is already  having a dealership for distribution  of  petroleum products. In the second case it is an admitted fact that one of  the appellant’s partners is already having a  dealership of petroleum products and in the third case, the appellant’s mother is already having a dealership of petroleum products. 2.     The questions raised in these  appeals/petitions  are whether the government 12 is  justified in imposition of eligibility  restrictions  in the  award of retail outlets (other than ""’  wheeler  ROs), SKO-LD dealerships and LPG distributorships guidelines. Part III  of the guidelines prescribes the  eligibility  criteria viz.,   nationality,  age  on  the  date   of   application, educational  qualifications, residence, SC/ST  Certificates, eligibility    for   freedom   fighters    and    physically handicapped/government personnel disabled on duty/widows  of govt.  personnel  who  die  in the  course  of  duty.   Then dealer’s  relationship (applicable for all  categories)  has been prescribed as one of the criteria which reads as  under :-               (a)  No  person  or  a  Consumer  Co-operative               Society  shall  be awarded a  new  dealership/               distributorship if he/she or the Consumer  Co-               operative Society already holds a  dealership/

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

             distributorship        of         LPG/Kerosene               /LDO/HSD/MS/Lubricating   Oil   of   any   Oil               Company.               (b)   No  person  shall  be  awarded   a   new               Dealership/Distributorship   if  any  of   the               following  close  relatives  (including   step               relatives)  of  the  person  already  hold   a               dealership/distributorship     of    LPG     /               Kerosene/LDO/HSD/MS/Lubricating  oil  or   ,my               other petroleum products of any Oil Company. For other than PH candidates in    ] For PH candidates only PH Category FF,DEF,SC/ST and OPEN i0) Spouse                         ] i)  Spouse ii) Father/Mother                  ] ii) Father/Mother iii)Brother/Sister                 ] iii)Son/daughter-in-law iv) Son/daughter                   ] v)  Son-in-law/daughter            ]     in-law                         ] vi) Parents-in-law                 ] 3.      Clause 10 of the guidelines relates to  Partnerships with  which  we  are concerned in one of  the  matters.  The procedure  for selection has been prescribed in Part  VI  of the  guidelines. Criterion No.2 relates to screening of  the applicants for interview. Then, Rule 3 relates to norms  for evaluation of. Competing  claims of the candidates and  Rule 5 regulates selection of dealer/distributors. In this  ease, we  are  concerned  with dealership  of  petroleum  products applicable for all categories in which Clause (b) prescribes ineligibility  of  persons if one of the  persons  mentioned therein has already a dealership. It is seen that one of the conditions subject to which a candidate is entitled to apply for  grant of dealership is that his spouse,  father/mother, brother/sister,  son/  daughter,  son-in-law/daughter-in-law and  parents-in-law  if already had been  given  dealership, he/she  is made ineligible to apply for dealership.  In  the case of partner- 13 ships,  partners  should  individually  fulfil  the   above- mentioned  eligibility criteria/conditions and all  of  them must appear for an interview together. 4.       Shri  Ravindra  Bhat,  learned  counsel   for   the appellant/petitioners contended that under Art. 19(1)(g) all citizens  have  the right to practice any profession  or  to carry    on    any   occupation,    trade    or    business. Appellant/petitioners being eligible candidates to apply for the dealership or distributorship, then, one or the other of them  cannot be made ineligible on the ground  that  his/her spouse,  parents,  son’s-in-law  or a  relative  is  already having a dealership, because it is his/her own business  and he  has  nothing  to  do with  his  son’s-in-law  and  that, therefore,   the  prescription  of  ineligibility   due   to relationship  is  void  under  Art.  19(1)(g).  It  is  also arbitrary,  unjust and also it bears no reasonable nexus  to the object sought to be achieved. He further contended  that while  prescribing  the ineligibility criteria  for  persons other   than  the  physically  handicapped  ’PH’   category, discrimination  has been made between the other persons  and physically  handicapped  candidates  in  whose  favour   the ineligibility  is  only  in  respect  of  spouse,   parents, son/daughter-in-law.   The daughters and others having  been excluded from the eligibility, the inclusion of  parents-in- law, sons-in-law etc. in respect of others is also violative of  Art.  14 of the Constitution. We find no  force  in  the contention. 5.      The  preamble  to  the  Constitution  envisages  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

securing  of  economic  and   social  justice  to  all   its citizens;  accorded  equality of status and  of  opportunity assuring   the  dignity  of  the  individual.   Art.   39(b) postulates that the, ownership and  control of the  material resources  of the community are to be so distributed  as  to best   subserve  the  common  good.  Clause   (c)   prevents concentration  of  wealth  and means of  production  to  the common   detriment.   Since  the  grant  of  dealership   or distributorship  of  the petroleum products belongs  to  the Govt.  largess,  the  gevt. in its policy  of  granting  the largesse  have prescribed the eligibility criteria.  One  of the  eligibility  criteria  is  that  one  among  the   near relations  or partners or associates in other words among  a named  group  of persons alone should  have  dealership  and there  should  not  be  any concentration  by  them  in  the distribution   of   its  petroleum  products   through   the dealership.   The  guidelines  further  intend  to   prevent frustration  of  the  State  policy  by  process  of   legal ingenuity or subterfuge One of the criteria is relationship- The  relationship criteria has been prescribed to  see  that the persons who already had one dealership should not  apply so  that  the  above  objectives  of  the  Constitution  are achieved.  In  Part  II1, clause  (b)  of  the  relationship category,  a person among specified near relatives has  been made  ineligible to apply for another  dealership   to   any of      the     nationalised     oil     companies.      The petitioners/appellants  de  hors  the  guidelines  have   no independent  right  to  have business or  avocation  in  the distribution  or  production  or ownership  of  one  of  the petroleum  products.  Production and distribution of  the  : Petroleum  products are the exclusive monopoly of the  State under  Art.  19(6)  of the Constitution. As a  part  of  its policy of the   distribution of its largesse government have prescribed the eligibility criteria to the persons to obtain dealership  for  distribution  of  petroleum  products.  The distribution of the largesse of the State is for the  common good  and to subserve the common good of as many persons  as possible. The 14 Govt.  of  India  intended to group  together  certain  near relations   as  a unit and one among that  unit   alone  was made  eligible   to  apply  for  and  claim   for  grant  of dealership.  Further  economic   and  social   justice    as envisaged  in the preamble  of the Construction is sought to be  achieved.  Therefore   there  is  a   reasonable   nexus between the object  and the prescription of the  eligibility criterial  envisages  in  the  guidelines.  All  those   who satisfy   the eligibility  criteria alone are  entitled   to apply for the consideration for the grant  of dealership. It is true that  in case of physically handicapped persons were made  ineligible. Physically handicapped  persons  have been treated    as   a  class  by     themselves.   Under   these circumstances   any  other  person   other  than  PH  cannot claim  parity  with PH persons. As  far as  partnership   is concerned, if one  of the persons  either have a  dealership or  relations  who   were found to  be  eligible  under  teh relationship  criteria, and had the dealership, than  clause 10   of  the  said  guidelines  gets  attracted   and   such partnership   also  did not become  eligible to  apply   for dealership/distributorship. The object of clause 10  appears to  be that  for those  partners  had dealership, the  other partner   or the specified  relations also not  be  eligible to  apply  for grant of dealership  individually  or  as   a member  of  the partnership. Therefore  the  guidelines  are based on public policy  to give effect to the constitutional

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

creed of Part IV of the Indian Court. 6.      Under these circumstances, we find no  arbitrariness or  unjustness  in prescription of the  guidelines  for  the eligibility  criteria.   The  second  writ  petition  stands liable  to  be  dismissed  on  the  sale  ground  that   the Association  cannot  file  a writ  petition  as  it  has  no fundamental right under Art.32  of the Constitution. One  of the    petitioners/appellants   has   claimed   as    having partnership, but the details thereof have not been given. We therefore dismiss teh appeal as well as the writ   petitions with costs quantified at Rs. 20,000/- each. 15