Mukund Swarup Mishra Vs. Union of India and Ors.
EmailAppeal: Transferred Case No.100 of 2002
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.
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.
Petitioner: Mukund Swarup Mishra
Respondent: Union of India and Ors.
Apeal: Transferred Case No.100 of 2002
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.
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.
Judges: C. K. Thakker & R. V. Raveendran, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 07, 2008
Appearances:
Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, A.S.G. (A.C.), Mr. A. Sharan, A.S.G., Mr. Rakesh Kumar Khanna, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Mr. Sunil Kumar, Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, Mr. Mahendra Anand, Senior Advocates, Mr. Raghenth Basant, Mr. Nikhil Nayyar (A.C.), Mr. Krishan Dayan (A.C.), Mr. Sudhir Kulshreshtha, Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Mr. Gautam Godara, Ms. Asha Jain Madan, Mr. Manish Pitale, Mr. Chander Shekhar, Mr. Ashri, A.D.N. Rao, Ms. Rakhika Chandrashekar, Mr. D.M. Nargolkar, Mr. Amey Nargolkar, Capt. Karan Singh Bhati, Ms. Rekha Giri, Dr. Kailash Chand, Mr. H.K. Puri, Mr. S.K. Puri, Ms. Priya Puri, Mr. V.M. Chauhan, Mr. Maninder Singh, Ms. Prathiba Singh, Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Mr. S. Bhatia, Ms. Surbhi Mehta, Mr. Nishant Katneshwarkar, Mr. Sanjay Khade, Mr. Arvind Avhad, Ms. Chandan Ramamurthi, Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora, Mr. Harshvardhan Jha (for M/s. K.L. Mehta and Co.), Mr. Alok Kumar, Mr. Surya Kant, Mr. Faizy Ahmed Syed, Mr. Pranav Vyas, Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, Mr. Arjun, Ms. Tatini Basu, M/s. P.H. Parekh and Co., Mr. Sanjeev Malhotra, Mr. Ugra Shankar Prasad, Mr. Praneet Ranjan, Mr. S.N. Bhat, Mr. N.P.S. Panwar, Mr. D.P. Chaturvedi, Mr. G.A. Hegde, Mr. Manoj Swarup, Ms. Lalita Kohli, (for M/s. Manoj Swarup and Co.), Mr. R.K. Maheshwari, Mr. Goodwill Indeevar, Mr. Pranab Kumar Mullick, Mr. B.S. Banthia, Mr. Rajesh Mahale, Mr. R.C. Kohli, Mr. Bhaupender Yadav, Mr. Shiv Sagar Tiwari, Ms. Alka Agrawal, Mr. Ajay Kumar Agrawal, Ms. Anamika Agrawal, Ms. S.S. Jauhar, Mr. R.S. Suri, Mr. Zaki Ahmad Khan, Mr. Irshad Ahmad, Mr. A.T.M. Sampath, Mr. L.R. Singh, Mr. S.M. Jadhav, Mr. Vipin Nair, Mr. P.B.N. Suresh, Mr. Vivek Sharma (for M/s. Temple Law Firm), Mr. R. Santhan Krishnan, Ms. K Radha Rani, Mr. P. Vijaya Kumar, Mr. Praveen Kumar Pandey, Mr. C Tulasi Krishna, Mr. D. Mahesh Babu, Mr. A. Raghunath, Mr. Anil Kumar Chopra, Mr. Firasat Ali Siddiqui, Mr. Shiv Prakash Pandey, Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, Mr. K.V. Mohan, Mr. P. Venkat Reddy, Mr. Anil Kumar Tandale, Ms. Prathibha Jain, Mr. Awanish Sinha, Ms. Sarla Chandra, Mr. Arun K. Sinha, Mr. Ajay Pal, Mr. S.V. Deshpande, Mr. Ashok Mathur, Mr. Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay, Mr. Rajiv Talwar, Mr. Debasis Mitra, Mr. B.K. Satija, Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Mr. Sanjay Visen, Mr. D.K. Singh, Mr. T.V. George, Mr. Amit Sharma, Mr. A.L. Das, Mr. R.P. Goyal, Ms. Sonia Mathur, Mr. S.K. Kulkarni, Mr. M. Gireesh Kumar, Mr. C.S.N. Mohan Rao, Mr. Amol Chitale, Ms. Rekha Palli, Ms. S. Janani, Mr. Amit Kumar, Mr. Ranbir Singh Yadav, Mr. Sumeer Kumar Shrivastava, Ms. Nanda Sinha, Mr. S. Chandra Shekhar, Mr. T.Raja, Mr. Mohd. Faisal, Mr. Rauf Rahim, Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, Mr. P.K. Goswami, Mr. P.K. Jain, Ms. Anita Shenoy, Mr. Manjit Singh, Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Ms. Indra Makwana, Ms. Pinky, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Mr. Mohd. Noorullah, Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed, Ms. Naghma Imtiaz, Mr. Kamran Malik (for M/s. Equity Lex Associates), Ms. Sudhanshu Chaudhari, Mr. Naresh Kumar, Mr. Sremik Singhvi, Ms. Sonia Khurana, Ms. Susmita Lal, Mr. Vinay Kumar Garg, Ms. Shiva Kumar Sinha, Ms. Shrish Kumar Misra, Dr. S.K. Verma, Mr. Anil Kumar, Ms. Akanksha Verma Chandok, Mr. Atul Kumar, Mr. S.K. Shrivastava, Mr. Nanda Sinha, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Mr. Manoj Swarup, Mr. Happy Saxena, Mr. Bijoy Kumar Jain, Mr. K.K. Mohan, Mr. Ajay Choudhary, Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Mr. M.P. Shorawala, Mr. Prakash Shrivastava, Mr. Vijay Kumar, Mr. Abhay Prakash Sahay, Mr. Kuldip Singh. Mr. R.C. Verma, Mr. C.N. Sree Kumar, Mr. Sanjay Jain, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Giri, Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Mr. Anupam Kumar Singh, Ms. Kavita Wadia, Mr. Satyajit A Desai, Mrs. Anagha S. Desai, Mr. Vikram Saluja, Mr. V.R. Anumolu, Mr. R.S. Lambat, Mr. Yash Pal Dhingra, Sanjay Kapur, Ms. Naresh Bakshi, Mr. Tushar Bakshi, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Mr. Dipak Kumar Jena, Mr. Sudhir Kumar Gupta, Mr. Nitin S. Tambwekar, Mr. B.S. Sai, Mr. K. Rajeev, Mr.Vikas Mehta, Mr. Anil Karnwal, Mr. S.S. Pillania, Dr. Sushil Balwada, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, Ms. A Subhashini, Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Mr. Arvind Kumar, Ms. Laxmi Arvind, Ms. Poonam Prasad, Mr. Pranav Vyas, Mr. T.A. Khan, Mr. B.K. Prasad, Mr. D.N. Goburdhan, Ms. Pinky Anand, Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. Asha G. Nair and Ms. Sujata Kurudukar, Advocates with them for the appearing parties, Mr. Mukund Swarup Mishra, Applicant-in-Person (NP) and Intervenor-in-Person (NP).
Head Note:
Constitution
Constitution of India, 1950
Articles 32, 226, 136 – Allotment of dealership in petrol and other products – On news item, Government cancelled all allotments – Said orders quashed by Supreme Court in 2002 [Vide judgment in Onkar Lal Bajaj v. Union of India], in respect of all dealers, except 413 cases – Those cases to be examined by committee – Committee examined 409 cases and declared 297 cases being not on merits – Objections against report rejected on 12.1.2007 – Cases of certain dealers in some of the States dealt with – On examining, held that in State of Madhya Pradesh, in 13 cases, cancellation upheld. Allotment of two were borderline cases, hence not disturbed. (Para 5)
Constitution of India, 1950
Articles 32, 226, 136 – Allotment of dealership in petrol and other products – On news item, Government cancelled all allotments – Said orders quashed by Supreme Court in 2002 [Vide judgment in Onkar Lal Bajaj v. Union of India], in respect of all dealers, except 413 cases – Those cases to be examined by committee – Committee examined 409 cases and declared 297 cases being not on merits – Objections against report rejected on 12.1.2007 – Cases of certain dealers in some of the States dealt with – On examining, held that in State of Madhya Pradesh, in 13 cases, cancellation upheld. Allotment of two were borderline cases, hence not disturbed. (Para 5)
Held:
That in State of Bihar, 26 cases found not on merits. Out of them recommendation of 11 cases approved and allotment cancelled. Other 8 cases were borderline cases and not disturbed. 6 did not file objections. In remaining one case, no order as civil and criminal proceedings pending in courts. (Para 6)
That in State of Andhra Pradesh, out of 44 cases, 19 were found on merits. One not considered due to pending court case. 24 cases not on merits. 20 of them objected. Others did not challenge. One of the objector withdrew objections. Out of 20, 11 found not on merits and hence cancellation approved. Remaining 9 were borderline cases. Cancellation set aside. (Para 7)
That in case of State of Karnataka only 2 cases found on merits – Among remaining 22 cases, 18 filed objections and remaining not challenging. Out of them 16 cases upheld for cancellation. Other two on borderline. Hence, cancellation set aside. (Para 8)
That in State of Maharashtra, 53 cases not approved by committee. 30 filed objections. 22 cases, cancellation upheld. Remaining 8 cases were on borderline. Hence, cancellation set-aside. (Para 9)
That in case of Uttar Pradesh, 9 cases on merits. One case not considered due to Court proceedings. Out of remaining 33, 29 persons filed objections. Report of cancellation approved in regard to 20 cases. Remaining 9 were borderline cases hence cancellation set-aside. (Para 10)
The court accepted the approval of 112 cases by the committee and rejected the balance, which were not approved. (Para 11)
That in State of Andhra Pradesh, out of 44 cases, 19 were found on merits. One not considered due to pending court case. 24 cases not on merits. 20 of them objected. Others did not challenge. One of the objector withdrew objections. Out of 20, 11 found not on merits and hence cancellation approved. Remaining 9 were borderline cases. Cancellation set aside. (Para 7)
That in case of State of Karnataka only 2 cases found on merits – Among remaining 22 cases, 18 filed objections and remaining not challenging. Out of them 16 cases upheld for cancellation. Other two on borderline. Hence, cancellation set aside. (Para 8)
That in State of Maharashtra, 53 cases not approved by committee. 30 filed objections. 22 cases, cancellation upheld. Remaining 8 cases were on borderline. Hence, cancellation set-aside. (Para 9)
That in case of Uttar Pradesh, 9 cases on merits. One case not considered due to Court proceedings. Out of remaining 33, 29 persons filed objections. Report of cancellation approved in regard to 20 cases. Remaining 9 were borderline cases hence cancellation set-aside. (Para 10)
The court accepted the approval of 112 cases by the committee and rejected the balance, which were not approved. (Para 11)
Cases Reffered:
1. Onkar Lal Bajaj v. Union of India [2003 (2) SCC 673] (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
R.V. Raveendran, J.
1. 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 and Natural Gas to initiate steps to 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 and 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. 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. 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 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, Chhattisgarh, 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.
5.1. 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/Location
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. 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/2003 Nitu Prasad (LPG – Pachrukha)
2. 167/Bihar/2003 Ashok Kumar Yadav (LPG-Narpatganj
3. 168/Bihar/2003 Pushpa Lata (LPG – Sonbarsa)
4. 170/Bihar/2003 Hiran Kumari (RO – Ramgarh Bazar)
5. 174/Bihar/2003 Neelam Kumari (SKO/LDO- Waris Nagar)
6. 176/Bihar/2003 Raj Kumar Singh (RO – Videswar)
7. 177/Bihar/2003 Krishna Yadav (RO/Karuamore)
8. 180/Bihar/2003 Kameshwar Prasad Singh (LPG-Bihiya)
9. 186/Bihar/2003 Radha Krishan Prasad Singh (LPG-Bakhri)
10. 190/Bihar/2003 Aarti Kumari (RO/Fatuwah)
11. 192/Bihar/2003 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/2003 Shiv Shankar Chaudhary (RO – Benipur)
2. 171/Bihar/2003 Dr. Usha Viyarthi (RO – Datiyana)
3. 182/Bihar/2003 Sarita Singh (LPG – Arrah)
4. 183/Bihar/2003 Aditya Kumar (RO – Punpun)
5. 184/Bihar/2003 Bikash Prasad Singh (RO – Khaira)
6. 189/Bihar/2003 Vijay Kumar (RO – Lauriya)
7. 191/Bihar/2003 Kameshwar Chaupal (RO – Bihta)
8. 193/Bihar/2003 Raju Raj (RO – Nawadah Town)
We therefore allow their applications and set aside the cancellation of allotment.
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.
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/2003 B.Sujatha (RO – Ghanpur Road)
2. 338/AP/2003 M.Shailaja (LPG – Devarkanda)
3. 346/AP/2003 B P Pushpa Lata (RO/Miyanpur)
4. 347/AP/2003 J.Sunanda Yadav (RO/Patencheru)
5. 354/AP/2003 N.Renuka (RO/Hayath Nagar NH-9)
6. 355/AP/2003 Deendayal Rao (LPG – Karim Nagar)
7. 358/AP/2003 G.Mahendra Reddy (RO/Bhainsa Town)
8. 364/AP/2003 Ramagaliah Anjaiah (RO/Bachannapet)
9. 372/AP/2003 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 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. Chandrashekhar 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 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./2003 Suchitra S. Patwardhan (LPG – Kagwad)
2. 388/Kar./2003 Srikant S. Katwe (LPG – Hubli)
3. 389/Kar./2003 K V Swaroop (LPG – Chintamani)
4. 390/Kar./2003 D N Jeevaraju (RO/Jayapura, Chickmaglur)
5. 391/Kar./2003 A. Sasikala (LPG – Mysore)
6. 392/Kar./2003 Mohan S Shettar (RO/Hubli)
7. 393/Kar./2003 D.Savitri (RO/Basavakalyan)
8. 395/Kar./2003 C.Munikrishna (RO/Bangalore Urban)
9. 396/Kar./2003 B V Rajshekhar Reddy (LPG – Dommasandra)
10. 398/Kar./2003 S.Manjula (RO/Chikkasanna
Cross Bangalore)
11. 399/Kar./2003 Sunil Venkatesh Hegde (LPG – Dandeli)
12. 400/Kar./2003 Parvatamma (RO/Sirwar, Raichur)
13. 405/Kar./2003 S. Prakash (RO/Bangalore Urban-II)
14. 406/Kar./2003 B J Shantamma (LPG – Anekal)
15. 408/Kar./2003 Bharathi Shetty (RO/Soraba)
16. 410/Kar./2003 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 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./2003 Jayant P. Dandekar (RO/Safale, Thane)
2. 261/Mah./2003 Shivish Bhandudas Kirad (LPG – Hadispur, Pune)
3. 265/Mah./2003 Manoj K Dhore (LPG – Pimpri, Pune)
4. 271/Mah./2003 Anirudha Vasant Pujari (LPG – Sangola, Solapur)
5. 272/Mah./2003 Sarala Shivaji Rao (RO/Khandvi, Solapur)
6. 275/Mah./2003 Vijia S. Sancheti (LPG-Lonar/Buidhana)
7. 276/Mah./2003 Hitender G.Ahir (RO/ Ghughus, Chandrapur)
8. 278/Mah./2003 Sapra Sudhi Mangantiwar (LPG/ Ballarpur, Chandrapur)
9. 280/Mah./2003 V K Nakade (LPG – Chimur, Chandrapur)
10. 283/Mah./2003 Girish Navnath Avhad (RO/Wagholi, Pune)
11. 288/Mah./2003 Milind H. Deshpande (LPG – Sholapur)
12. 293/Mah./2003 Anasuya R. Kamath (RO/Mumbai)
13. 295/Mah./2003 Savita S Jadhao (SKO – LDO Washim)
14. 298/Mah./2003 Vishwanath R Dange (RO/Palus, Sangli)
15. 305/Mah./2003 Prashant D.Mahajan (RO/Maltekdi, Amravati)
16. 310/Mah./2003 Bala Saheb Mahadeo (LPG – Bhum, Osmanabad)
K.Shirsagar
17. 311/Mah./2003 Vikram Ganpatrao (RO/Latur)
Gojamgunde
18. 312/Mah./2003 Anita O.Pande (RO/Hingria Road, Nagpur)
19. 313/Mah./2003 Prasanna P. Paturkar (LPG – Amravati-A)
20. 321/Mah./2003 Jyoti Pradeep Kendre (RO/Ambajogal, Beed)
21. 325/Mah./2003 Dhananjay Pandit Rao (RO/Shirur, Beed)
Munde
22. 332/Mah./2003 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./2003 Ravindra Babu Rao Yedke (LPG Bidkin, Aurangabad)
2. 269/Mah./2003 Amit Bhagwant Rao Sude (SKO – LDO Aurangabad)
3. 270/Mah./2003 Sachin Shankar Rao Yadav (LPG – Hadaspur, Pune)
4. 284/Mah./2003 Shailendra D. Tupe (SKO-LDO Velhe Taluk,
Pune)
5. 286/Mah./2003 Sunil M. Gudhe (SKO-LDO Anjangaon,
Amravati)
6. 291/Mah./2003 Mukund N Kulkarni (RO/Palm Beach, Nerul,
Thane)
7. 316/Mah./2003 Yogesh Dilip Godambe (RO/Wadala, Mumbai)
8. 324/Mah./2003 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 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)
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/2003 Manisha Singh (RO/Balia)
2. 130/UP/2003 Alok Kumar Verma (LPG – Chhibramau, Kannauj)
3. 131/UP/2003 Suman Devi (RO/ Mehandipur, Barabanki)
4. 134/UP/2003 Baij Nath Rawat (RO/Nai Sadak Tiraha,
Barabanki)
5. 137/UP/2003 Poonam Singh Chaudhary (LPG – Nanpura, Bahraich)
6. 145/UP/2003 Chandramani Kant Singh (LPG – Bhinga, Shrawasti)
7. 146/UP/2003 Ram Kumar Verma (RO/Barbar Town, Lakhimpur
Kheri)
8. 151/UP/2003 Anand Kumar (RO/Chilwaria, Bahraich)
9. 157/UP/2003 Saroj Agnihotri (RO/Jhansi Town)
We therefore allow the above nine applications and set aside the cancellation of allotments.
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.
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 and 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.
1. 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 and Natural Gas to initiate steps to 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 and 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. 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. 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 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, Chhattisgarh, 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.
5.1. 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/Location
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. 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/2003 Nitu Prasad (LPG – Pachrukha)
2. 167/Bihar/2003 Ashok Kumar Yadav (LPG-Narpatganj
3. 168/Bihar/2003 Pushpa Lata (LPG – Sonbarsa)
4. 170/Bihar/2003 Hiran Kumari (RO – Ramgarh Bazar)
5. 174/Bihar/2003 Neelam Kumari (SKO/LDO- Waris Nagar)
6. 176/Bihar/2003 Raj Kumar Singh (RO – Videswar)
7. 177/Bihar/2003 Krishna Yadav (RO/Karuamore)
8. 180/Bihar/2003 Kameshwar Prasad Singh (LPG-Bihiya)
9. 186/Bihar/2003 Radha Krishan Prasad Singh (LPG-Bakhri)
10. 190/Bihar/2003 Aarti Kumari (RO/Fatuwah)
11. 192/Bihar/2003 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/2003 Shiv Shankar Chaudhary (RO – Benipur)
2. 171/Bihar/2003 Dr. Usha Viyarthi (RO – Datiyana)
3. 182/Bihar/2003 Sarita Singh (LPG – Arrah)
4. 183/Bihar/2003 Aditya Kumar (RO – Punpun)
5. 184/Bihar/2003 Bikash Prasad Singh (RO – Khaira)
6. 189/Bihar/2003 Vijay Kumar (RO – Lauriya)
7. 191/Bihar/2003 Kameshwar Chaupal (RO – Bihta)
8. 193/Bihar/2003 Raju Raj (RO – Nawadah Town)
We therefore allow their applications and set aside the cancellation of allotment.
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.
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/2003 B.Sujatha (RO – Ghanpur Road)
2. 338/AP/2003 M.Shailaja (LPG – Devarkanda)
3. 346/AP/2003 B P Pushpa Lata (RO/Miyanpur)
4. 347/AP/2003 J.Sunanda Yadav (RO/Patencheru)
5. 354/AP/2003 N.Renuka (RO/Hayath Nagar NH-9)
6. 355/AP/2003 Deendayal Rao (LPG – Karim Nagar)
7. 358/AP/2003 G.Mahendra Reddy (RO/Bhainsa Town)
8. 364/AP/2003 Ramagaliah Anjaiah (RO/Bachannapet)
9. 372/AP/2003 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 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. Chandrashekhar 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 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./2003 Suchitra S. Patwardhan (LPG – Kagwad)
2. 388/Kar./2003 Srikant S. Katwe (LPG – Hubli)
3. 389/Kar./2003 K V Swaroop (LPG – Chintamani)
4. 390/Kar./2003 D N Jeevaraju (RO/Jayapura, Chickmaglur)
5. 391/Kar./2003 A. Sasikala (LPG – Mysore)
6. 392/Kar./2003 Mohan S Shettar (RO/Hubli)
7. 393/Kar./2003 D.Savitri (RO/Basavakalyan)
8. 395/Kar./2003 C.Munikrishna (RO/Bangalore Urban)
9. 396/Kar./2003 B V Rajshekhar Reddy (LPG – Dommasandra)
10. 398/Kar./2003 S.Manjula (RO/Chikkasanna
Cross Bangalore)
11. 399/Kar./2003 Sunil Venkatesh Hegde (LPG – Dandeli)
12. 400/Kar./2003 Parvatamma (RO/Sirwar, Raichur)
13. 405/Kar./2003 S. Prakash (RO/Bangalore Urban-II)
14. 406/Kar./2003 B J Shantamma (LPG – Anekal)
15. 408/Kar./2003 Bharathi Shetty (RO/Soraba)
16. 410/Kar./2003 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 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./2003 Jayant P. Dandekar (RO/Safale, Thane)
2. 261/Mah./2003 Shivish Bhandudas Kirad (LPG – Hadispur, Pune)
3. 265/Mah./2003 Manoj K Dhore (LPG – Pimpri, Pune)
4. 271/Mah./2003 Anirudha Vasant Pujari (LPG – Sangola, Solapur)
5. 272/Mah./2003 Sarala Shivaji Rao (RO/Khandvi, Solapur)
6. 275/Mah./2003 Vijia S. Sancheti (LPG-Lonar/Buidhana)
7. 276/Mah./2003 Hitender G.Ahir (RO/ Ghughus, Chandrapur)
8. 278/Mah./2003 Sapra Sudhi Mangantiwar (LPG/ Ballarpur, Chandrapur)
9. 280/Mah./2003 V K Nakade (LPG – Chimur, Chandrapur)
10. 283/Mah./2003 Girish Navnath Avhad (RO/Wagholi, Pune)
11. 288/Mah./2003 Milind H. Deshpande (LPG – Sholapur)
12. 293/Mah./2003 Anasuya R. Kamath (RO/Mumbai)
13. 295/Mah./2003 Savita S Jadhao (SKO – LDO Washim)
14. 298/Mah./2003 Vishwanath R Dange (RO/Palus, Sangli)
15. 305/Mah./2003 Prashant D.Mahajan (RO/Maltekdi, Amravati)
16. 310/Mah./2003 Bala Saheb Mahadeo (LPG – Bhum, Osmanabad)
K.Shirsagar
17. 311/Mah./2003 Vikram Ganpatrao (RO/Latur)
Gojamgunde
18. 312/Mah./2003 Anita O.Pande (RO/Hingria Road, Nagpur)
19. 313/Mah./2003 Prasanna P. Paturkar (LPG – Amravati-A)
20. 321/Mah./2003 Jyoti Pradeep Kendre (RO/Ambajogal, Beed)
21. 325/Mah./2003 Dhananjay Pandit Rao (RO/Shirur, Beed)
Munde
22. 332/Mah./2003 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./2003 Ravindra Babu Rao Yedke (LPG Bidkin, Aurangabad)
2. 269/Mah./2003 Amit Bhagwant Rao Sude (SKO – LDO Aurangabad)
3. 270/Mah./2003 Sachin Shankar Rao Yadav (LPG – Hadaspur, Pune)
4. 284/Mah./2003 Shailendra D. Tupe (SKO-LDO Velhe Taluk,
Pune)
5. 286/Mah./2003 Sunil M. Gudhe (SKO-LDO Anjangaon,
Amravati)
6. 291/Mah./2003 Mukund N Kulkarni (RO/Palm Beach, Nerul,
Thane)
7. 316/Mah./2003 Yogesh Dilip Godambe (RO/Wadala, Mumbai)
8. 324/Mah./2003 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 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)
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/2003 Manisha Singh (RO/Balia)
2. 130/UP/2003 Alok Kumar Verma (LPG – Chhibramau, Kannauj)
3. 131/UP/2003 Suman Devi (RO/ Mehandipur, Barabanki)
4. 134/UP/2003 Baij Nath Rawat (RO/Nai Sadak Tiraha,
Barabanki)
5. 137/UP/2003 Poonam Singh Chaudhary (LPG – Nanpura, Bahraich)
6. 145/UP/2003 Chandramani Kant Singh (LPG – Bhinga, Shrawasti)
7. 146/UP/2003 Ram Kumar Verma (RO/Barbar Town, Lakhimpur
Kheri)
8. 151/UP/2003 Anand Kumar (RO/Chilwaria, Bahraich)
9. 157/UP/2003 Saroj Agnihotri (RO/Jhansi Town)
We therefore allow the above nine applications and set aside the cancellation of allotments.
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.
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 and 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.
