Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1047 (ALL)

CHANDRA PAL SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA

2002-08-20

K.N.SINHA, MARKANDEY KATJU

body2002
Heard Mr. R. B. Singhal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B. N. Singh, learned Counsel for the Union of India and Dr. R. G. Padia, learned Counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation. 2. The respondents are directed to file counter-affidavit within one month. 3. List thereafter. 4. The petitioner has challenged the impugned orders dated 9-8- 2002 and 16-8-2002, Annexures-6 and 7 to the writ petition. We have carefully perused the impugned orders. We are, prima facie, of the opinion that they are arbitrary and illegal. 5. The petitioner was granted a retail out-let for supply of motor spirit and petroleum products against the advertisement dated 31-8-2000, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, in the freedom fighter category. The petitioner appeared in the interview before the Dealer Selection Board, Bareilly and vide order dated 21-2-2002, Annexure 5 to the writ petition, he was appointed as Retail Outlet Dealer at Chandausi, District Moradabad, vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition. After completing the necessary formalities the petitioner started operating the Out- let dealership in March, 2002 in the name and style of M/s. Azad Hind Filling Station. It has been alleged in paragraph No. 11 that he has invested a huge amount of money to run the Outlet at Chandausi and he has been running the said outlet since March, 2002. 6. In paragraph No. 14 of the petition it is stated that suddenly the impugned order dated 9-8-2002 was issued by the Union of India directing cancellation of allotment of Retail Outlet dealership of motor spirit and higher speed diesel, LPG Distributorship, and DKO-LDO Dealership since 1-1-2000 vide Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Consequently, the supply to the petitioner has been stopped. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 16-8-2002 the petitioners Outlet has been cancelled. It is alleged that no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. 7. It appears that there was wide publicity in the media of Petrol Pump allotments to the members of a particular political party, and hence the Prime Minister directed all such dealerships of Retail outlet, LPG Gas Distributorship and SKO-LTO granted after 1-1-2000 to be cancelled. 8. 7. It appears that there was wide publicity in the media of Petrol Pump allotments to the members of a particular political party, and hence the Prime Minister directed all such dealerships of Retail outlet, LPG Gas Distributorship and SKO-LTO granted after 1-1-2000 to be cancelled. 8. In our opinion, if the Central Government was of the opinion that any of the dealership had been granted on extraneous considerations, as reported by the media, the proper course of action for the Central Government was to constitute a high level impartial body for investigation as to whether the dealerships were granted on extraneous considerations or on genuine considerations. In our prima facie opinion the mistake committed by the Central Government appears to be that it has lumped up both these categories together, namely, the category of those who had been granted such dealership on genuine considerations, and the category of those who were granted the same on extraneous considerations. Surely, there are many persons who were granted such dealerships on genuine considerations e. g. physically handicapped people, widows of defence personnel, freedom fighters etc. Many of the persons who were granted such dealerships, must have invested lacs or crores of rupees for such business and it was, in our prima facie opinion, wholly arbitrary on the part of the Central Government to cancel all such dealerships with one stroke of the pen. The action of the Central Government seems to have been a knee-jerk reaction to a particular situation. In our opinion, it would have been better for the Central Government to have followed the course of action suggested by us in this order, namely, to appoint a high level impartial body for investigation of each individual dealership to determine whether it was granted on extraneous considerations or on genuine considerations. It is only after such investigation, in which opportunity of hearing is to be given to the concerned dealers, that the dealership of those who were granted dealership on extraneous considerations should have been cancelled. 9. In the circumstances, we stay the operation of the impugned orders dated 9-8-2002 and 16-8-2002, Annexures-6 and 7 to the writ petition. The status quo existing prior to 9-8-2002 shall continue till further orders of this Court. 9. In the circumstances, we stay the operation of the impugned orders dated 9-8-2002 and 16-8-2002, Annexures-6 and 7 to the writ petition. The status quo existing prior to 9-8-2002 shall continue till further orders of this Court. All consequential orders and actions passed or taken in pursuance of the order dated 9-8-2002 are suspended, even if they have been given effect to, and the dealers shall be allowed to continue their business. Since a large number of petitions have been filed in this Court we make it clear that this order will govern all the dealerships of the above nature in Uttar Pradesh, and it will not be confined to the petitioner in this petition alone. Stay granted. .