Judgment :- C.S. Rajan, J. The petitioner has filed this Original Petition as a public interest litigation challenging the decision/ order of the first respondent by which the telephone and cooking gas (LPG) connection quotas for Lok Sabha Members were restored and raised to 160 from 50 in every year. According to the petitioner, the above decision to restore the quota is discriminatory and arbitrary. It is further submitted on the strength of various rulings of the Supreme Court that this allotment of quotas to the Members of Parliament would ultimately lead to arbitrariness and gross violation of the constitutional norms. According to the petitioner, such privileges are not to be conferred on the Members of Parliament and they cannot claim any better privilege, in the matter of allotment of LPG connections and telephone connections than which the ordinary citizens of this country enjoy. 2. Sri. Tony George Kannanthanam, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision reported in Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. (1991) 1 SCC 212). In the above case the Supreme Court was considering the case of termination of appointments of Government counsel. I do not think the above case has any relevance in deciding this Original Petition. The learned counsel also relied on another decision of the Supreme Court reported in Prem Chand Somchand Shah v. Union of India ((1991) 2 SCC 48). The learned counsel particularly relied on paragraph 8 of the above decision which reads as follows: "8. As regards the right to equality guaranteed under Art.14 the position is well settled that the said right ensures equality amongst equals and its aim is to protect persons similarly placed against discriminatory treatment. It means that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. Conversely discrimination may result if persons dissimilarly situate are treated equally. Even amongst persons similarly situate differential treatment would be permissible between one class and the other. In that event it is necessary that the differential treatment should be founded on an intelligible different in which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question." Another ruling which the petitioner relied on is Common cause, a Registered Society v. Union of India ((1996) 6 SCC 530). In the above case the Supreme Court was considering the legality and propriety of allotments of retail outlets for petroleum products (petrol pumps) by the then Minister of State for Petroleum and Natural Gas, exercising the powers of the Central Government. The learned counsel relied on paragraphs 22 to 26. The Supreme Court relying on the earlier decisions of the Court reiterated the well accepted principle that even in the matter of grant of largesses including award of jobs, contracts, quotas and licences, the Government must act in fair and just manner and any arbitrary distribution of wealth would violate the laws of the land. The Supreme Court further held that the Minister was in a position of a trustee in respect of the public property under his charge and discretion and petrol pumps/ gas agencies are a kind of wealth which the Government must distribute in a bonafide manner and in conformity with law. The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the Minister had betrayed the trust reposed in him by the people under the Constitution. The next ruling which the learned counsel relied on is Shiv Sugar Tiwar v. Union of India ((1997) 1 SCC 444). In the above case, the Supreme Court was considering the out-of-turn allotment of houses made by the Ministry of Urban Development. The petitioner particularly relied on paragraphs 53 and 56 to 59. The above paras are reproduced herein below for easy reference. "53. An out-of-turn allottee is an ineligible person because he has not become eligible as per the rules governing the allotment. So, strictly speaking, an out-of-turn allottee is required to pay damages, and as in these cases, we are concerned with allotments made after 1.4.1991, therate of damages could be either Rs. 40 or Rs. 45 per sq.m., as the case may be. We are, however, desisting from doing so and would rather require treating the cases at hand as overstay after cancellation of allotment. As already noted, in cases of overstay, twice the licence fee becomes payable. We would like to make a distinction regarding the licence fee to be charged depending upon the type of quarter allotted. For Type III we would require this to be twice the licence fee; for Types IV and above three times the licence fee. 56. As already noted, in cases of overstay, twice the licence fee becomes payable. We would like to make a distinction regarding the licence fee to be charged depending upon the type of quarter allotted. For Type III we would require this to be twice the licence fee; for Types IV and above three times the licence fee. 56. The decision of the present Central Government on this aspect as finding place in the letter of the Cabinet Secretary dated 18.7.1996 bearing D O No.1/44/1/96-CAV is that "where it is considered absolutely necessary" small number of out-of-turn allotments would be made for which purpose also the Ministers/ Departments would formulate clear rules and guidelines. During the course of hearing, on being desired to know as to why out-of-turn allotment is at all required, the submission advanced on behalf of the Union of India was that there are a few officers, who by virtue of the duties discharged, have to be accommodated in government quarters to facilitate smooth functioning of the Government. These persons are who are attached to Prime Minister's Office and personnel of Cabinet Secretariat. It was also submitted that personal staff of the Chief Justice of India and Judges of the Supreme Court, so also of Union Ministers, Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners are required to be similarly dealt with. 57. The aforesaid does make out a case to permit minimal out-of-turn allotment. But then there can Ben denial that this has to be regulated and transparency has to be maintained in such allotments also. Indeed, the aforesaid letter of the Cabinet Secretary itself mentions about the framing of rules in this regard. We would therefore, state that the concerned Ministers/ Departments would frame appropriate rules relating to out-look-of-turn allotment and duly notify the same. This would be done within three months from today. The allotments to be made shall have to be as per the rules framed. 58. Coming to the question of limit of the out-of-turn allotment, we were informed by the Directorate that roughly 7000 quarters, out of about 65,000 fall vacant every year. Though the submission on behalf of the Union of India was that 10 percent of the quarters which become vacant every year should be allowed to be allotted on out-of-tum basis, according to us, 10 per cent would be on the higher side. Though the submission on behalf of the Union of India was that 10 percent of the quarters which become vacant every year should be allowed to be allotted on out-of-tum basis, according to us, 10 per cent would be on the higher side. There is almost a consensus that 5 per cent would meet the ends of justice. This would be so for each type of house, that is, 5 percent for those Type III quarters which fall vacant in a year, 5 per cent for Type IV quarters and so on. 59. The above apart, while making the out-of-turn allotment speaking order would be passed giving the reasons. List of allottees shall be notified and circulated to all the Government departments. Further, a yearly statement of such allotments would be laid on the table of each House of Parliament." As can be seen from the above judgment the Supreme Court was of opinion that 5 % can be earmarked for out-of-turn allotment which, according to the Supreme Court, would meet the ends of justice. 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent it has been stated that the connections provided on the recommendation to the Members of Parliament are not arbitrary, discriminatory or violative of Art.14 of the Constitution or against public interest. It was contended in the counter affidavit that the Members of Parliament are public men and elected representatives of the people and are in a better position to appreciate the special needs of particular persons residing within or outside their constituency. If L.P.G. or telephone connections are provided on the recommendations of MP's, it can be safely assumed that such recommendations are made after assessment of the factual and urgent need of the recommended person. Thus, according to the counter affidavit, the classification is reasonable and has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved namely to assess the emergent needs of the needy individual in a correct manner and to help them. It was further stated in the counter affidavit that the coupon for L.P.G. connection issued by a Member of Parliament will be valid for release of L.P.G. connections only in his constituency. The Honourable Speaker of the Lok Sabha announced in the House that each member of Parliament belonging to Lok Sabha would be provided 160 LPG connections per year. It was further stated in the counter affidavit that the coupon for L.P.G. connection issued by a Member of Parliament will be valid for release of L.P.G. connections only in his constituency. The Honourable Speaker of the Lok Sabha announced in the House that each member of Parliament belonging to Lok Sabha would be provided 160 LPG connections per year. Such connections would be released in the respective constituencies by the Members. It was further averred in the counter affidavit that the Hon'ble Speaker called the Hon'ble Ministers for Parliamentary Affairs, Communications, Minister of State (P&NG) and leaders of parties and groups in Lok Sabha and after consulting them decided to continue the L.P.G. connections quota to Lok Sabha MPs. 4. What emerges from the discussions by the Supreme Court in its various decisions referred to above is that Art.14 of the Constitution of India does not permit any arbitrary exercise of a discretionary power vested with the executive. The well accepted principle is that Art.14 permits a reasonable classification having a rational nexus to the objective sought to be achieved. A transparent and objective criteria must be evolved so that the choice among the members belonging to the same class or category is based on reason, fair play and non-arbitrariness. A welfare state like ours provides large number of benefits to citizens. Allotment of plots, houses, petrol pumps, gas agencies, mineral leases etc. are some of them. Such distribution of benefits are subject to judicial scrutiny. Therefore, the Government have a duty to impress upon the Courts that their actions are not tainted with constitutional infirmities and that no arbitrariness, discrimination or extraneous considerations have crept in the process of distribution of largesse. 5. In this case we are concerned with the quotas allotted to Members of Parliament. It cannot be disputed that Members of Parliament are having certain privileges which an ordinary citizen of this country does not have. Therefore, the quotas set apart for the Members of Parliament cannot be termed as either arbitrary or discriminatory. But the distribution to various persons under the above quota must be guided and controlled by certain norms. Such norms will prevent the exercise of the distribution of L.P.G. connections and telephone connections from becoming arbitrary. 11. Sri. Therefore, the quotas set apart for the Members of Parliament cannot be termed as either arbitrary or discriminatory. But the distribution to various persons under the above quota must be guided and controlled by certain norms. Such norms will prevent the exercise of the distribution of L.P.G. connections and telephone connections from becoming arbitrary. 11. Sri. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents fairly submitted that the Government of India has evolved certain guidelines within which they would be acting in the matter of allotting telephones and L.P.G. connections. One of such guidelines is, as averred in the counter affidavit, that the connections will be given only to those who reside within the constituency of the Members of the Parliament. The concerned Member of Parliament also will be required to give a statement/ certificate in the voucher that the concerned individual is in urgent need of an L.P. G./telephone connection. I think these guidelines will go a long way to minimise any arbitrariness or discrimination in the matter of allotment of L.P.G./ telephone connections. But in order to safeguard the interest of the general public I would like to add two more guidelines. One such guideline is that gas/ telephone connections must be given to only persons who were included in the current waiting list. Nobody who has not already registered for gas/telephone connections is entitled to get this out of turn allotment. Another guideline is that the gas connection must be only for domestic purposes and such connections shall not be used for any other purpose for example, commercial purposes. 12. In order to ensure that these guidelines are to be strictly followed and enforced, either the Speaker or the concerned Ministry must publish these guidelines and also the names of the persons to whom the gas/ telephone connections are allotted. The names of those persons must be published either by the Ministry or by the Lok Sabha Secretary. It is also appropriate either for the Speaker or for the Ministry to evolve a machinery by which, any misuse of these provisions or any allotment against these guidelines are suitably dealt with and corrected. 13. The names of those persons must be published either by the Ministry or by the Lok Sabha Secretary. It is also appropriate either for the Speaker or for the Ministry to evolve a machinery by which, any misuse of these provisions or any allotment against these guidelines are suitably dealt with and corrected. 13. The Supreme Court has held that the 5% out of turn allotment is allowable and the learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the present allotment by all the Members of Parliament including Rajya Sabha will be only less than 5% of the total allotment. It is also made clear that these guidelines must be uniformly applied in the case of Members of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. With the above directions and observations the Original Petition is disposed of.