Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2005 DIGILAW 1791 (SC)

Mukund Swarup Mishra v. Union of India

2005-11-09

C.K.THAKKER, P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN, Y.K.SABHARWAL

body2005
ORDER : C.K. Thakker, J. By order dated 20th April, 2005, it was directed that the learned Amicus Curiae could make it clear to the parties and their counsel that if objections to the report of the Committee are not filed by the first week of May, 2005, the parties would lose the right to file the same. The matter was again taken up on 19th July, 2005. The order that day refers to the number of cases referred to the Committee, the allotments approved and allotments recommended not to be approved. The said order also records that in respect of 178 cases, no objections have been filed against the report of the Committee, details whereof had been furnished in the synopsis. The Court directed acceptance of the Report with respect to those 178 cases. By that order, the objectors including those who had filed objections beyond the time indicated in the order dated 20th April, 2005were permitted to file brief synopsis within a period of four weeks. Learned Amicus Curiae was granted two weeks' time to file written synopsis dealing with the points in issue. The effect of the order was that applications/objections filed beyond the time stipulated in the order dated 20th April, 2005 were not to be rejected on the ground that they were filed beyond time. 2. The office report does not state the date of filing of the applications/objections. The Registry is directed to indicate before the next date of hearing as to which of the applications/objections have been filed after this Court passed the order on 19th July,2005. 3. Instead of four weeks granted to file brief synopsis in terms of the order dated 19th July, 2005, nearly fourteen weeks have elapsed. Whosoever has not filed the written synopsis till date, would lose the right to file the same now. No further written synopsis in support of the objections/applications filed in the Registry would been entertained hereafter. Written synopsis by learned Amicus Curiae dealing with the points in issue may now be filed within a period of three weeks. 4. There is yet another aspect arising out of the order dated 19th July, 2005. That concerns 11 I.As. which relate to cases recommended to be approved by the Committee. We have examined those applications and heard learned Amicus Curiae and such of the counsel who are present in Court in support of those applications. 4. There is yet another aspect arising out of the order dated 19th July, 2005. That concerns 11 I.As. which relate to cases recommended to be approved by the Committee. We have examined those applications and heard learned Amicus Curiae and such of the counsel who are present in Court in support of those applications. 5. I.A. No.4 08 for directions has been filed by the allottee Mohinder Nath So fat in respect whereof no objections have been filed and the applicant's allotment has been approved by the Committee. In this view, we allow this application and direct the name of Mohinder Nath So fat to be added to the list of 178 cases referred to in the order dated 19th July, 2005. Same is the position in respect of I.A. Nos.409 and 518 filed by Smt.Kamble Rohini Uttam. In respect of this allottee's allotment approved by the Committee too, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, these applications are allowed and her name added to the list of 178 cases. 6. I.A. Nos. 153-154 for impleadment and permission to file objections have been filed by Vinod Kumar, candidate at serial No.3, objecting to the approval of allotment to Saraswati Devi. I.A. Nos. 256-257 have been similarly filed by Preeti Saini, candidate at serial No.2, objecting to the approval of allotment by the Committee to Vijay Laxmi. 7. I.A. Nos. 377-378 have been filed by To shendra Kumar, candidate No.2, objecting the allotment made to Banwari Lal Dohre, as approved by the Committee. IA.No.432 is filed by Nandakumar, candidate No.2, objecting to the report of the Committee approving the allotment in favour of Manoj Kumar Sakharan Navale and I.A.No.403 is filed by Bhausaheb Tukaram Kirtishahi challenging the approval of allotment in favour of Suryakant Bhaorao. It is pertinent to note that none of these applicants had taken out any substantive proceedings to challenge the allotments made in favour of the allottees, now approved by the Committee as per the report submitted to this Court. 8. We have heard such of the counsel who are present in the Court in support of these applications. We find no ground to accept these applications and not to approve the recommendations made by the Committee. Accordingly, all these applications are dismissed and the allotments approved by the Committee, as afore-noted, are confirmed. 9. 8. We have heard such of the counsel who are present in the Court in support of these applications. We find no ground to accept these applications and not to approve the recommendations made by the Committee. Accordingly, all these applications are dismissed and the allotments approved by the Committee, as afore-noted, are confirmed. 9. I.A.Nos.266 and 334 deserve to be taken up along with Special Leave Petition(C) No.16261 of 2002 which has been filed against the order of the High Court. Thiscase pertains to allotment in favour of one Ashok Kumar Singh and challenge to the said allotment. The special leave petition and the applications would be heard together by this Court on the next date of hearing. 10. I.A.No.407 has been filed by the allottee Kiran J. Kasat. The allotment in her favour has been objected to by Ujjwala C. Joshi, candidate No.3, by filing I.A.No.494 for intervention and objections. It has been brought to our notice that in respect of the same allotment, a writ petition, being Writ Petition No.1084 of 2002, is pending before the Aurangabad Bench of the High Court of Bombay. On the oral application of learned Amicus Curiae, we are of the view that it would be expedient, in the interest of the parties, if both the applications (I.A.Nos.407 and 494) are heard along with the writ petition said to be pending before the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court. 11. Accordingly, accepting the oral application of the learned Amicus Curiae, we direct transfer of Writ Petition No.1084 of 2002 from the Bombay High Court to this Court, to be disposed of along with these applications. The applications and the transferred case shall be listed before this Court on the next date of hearing. 12. I.A.No.515 seeks modification of the order dated 19th July, 2005 since it appears that some error has crept in, as mentioned in para 3(a) and 3(b) of the application. They read as under: "3. The Amicus Curiae verified the records and has found: (a) That the case of Shri Mukund Narayan Kulkarni was in advertantly added to the list of 178 cases wherein no objections were filed in as much as no application/copy of objections were served upon the Amicus Curiae. However, the fact that Shri. Deshpande has filed IA No.164 for intervention is duly mentioned at Sl.No.86 in the Office report dated 15.7.2005. However, the fact that Shri. Deshpande has filed IA No.164 for intervention is duly mentioned at Sl.No.86 in the Office report dated 15.7.2005. (b) That as regards, the I.A.Nos.278-279 filed on behalf of Smt. Sapna Sudhir Mungantiwar, the same is duly referred to at page 52 of the Report/synopsis submitted by the Amicus Curiae. However, owing to an error in the case No. at Sl.No.159 of the Office Report dated 15.7.2005 the synopsis submitted by the Amicus Curiae mentioned as follows: "See Sl.159, p.27 of the Office Report - I.A. Nos. 278-279 have been filed on behalf of Smt. Sapna Sudhir by Mr. S.V. Deshpande, Advocate - however a copy of the application has not been served on the amicus and a perusal of the report of the Justice S.C. Agrawal and Justice P.K.Bahri Committee reveals that the said individual does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Dealer Selection Board and neither is she a complainant in the case." The I.A. is allowed in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of the application, which read as under: "(a) direct the cases of Shri Mukund Narayan Kulkarni, Case No.291/Maharashtra/2003 and Smt. Sapna Sudhir Mungantiwar, Case No.278/Maharashtra/2003 be deleted from the list of 178 cases mentioned in the synopsis of the Amicus Curiae submitted to this Hon'ble Court on 19.7.2005. (b) direct that Case No.279/Maharashtra/2003 pertaining to the allotment in favour of Shri Yogesh N. Rathi may kindly be included in the list of cases in regard to which no objections have been filed and further that the interim orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in regard to the said case would stand vacated and that the oil company concerned be directed to proceed on the basis of the recommendation of the Committee in regard to the said case." As a consequence, the case of Yogesh N. Rathi would come in the list of 178 cases instead of the case of Sapna Sudhir Mungantiwar. The necessary correction about the case number would also be made. Similar will be the position in respect of Sandeep Chandrakant Mane, Case No.299/Mah/2003, who would come in the list of 178 case sin stead of Mukund Kulkarni. 13. I.A.No.515 stands disposed of accordingly. 14. The necessary correction about the case number would also be made. Similar will be the position in respect of Sandeep Chandrakant Mane, Case No.299/Mah/2003, who would come in the list of 178 case sin stead of Mukund Kulkarni. 13. I.A.No.515 stands disposed of accordingly. 14. It has been brought to our notice by learned Amicus Curiae that Case No.144/UP/2003 pertaining to Rakesh Kumar Maheshwari was not considered by the Committee in view of the cancellation of allotment in favour of original allottee Hemant Kumar by the Dealer Selection Board. The allotment was made in favour of Rakesh Kumar Maheshwari and it was not challenged by the original allottee Hemant Kumar. In this view, the name of Rakesh Kumar Maheshwari deserves to be placed in the category of 178 cases. We may note that no objections have been filed either before the Committee or before this Court challenging the allotment in favour of Rakesh Kumar Maheshwari. The application earlier filed, being I.A. No. 363 of 2004, stood withdrawn in terms of order dated 19th July, 2005. The name of Rakesh Kumar Maheshwari is hence added to the list of 178. 15. List these matters in the week commencing 17th January, 2006. 16. If any of the cases are to be included in the list by the Registry,Mr. Muralidhar, learned amicus curiae, would point out the same and the Registry would ensure that the same are also included. Counsel would be free to furnish the relevant information to Mr. Muralidhar, if they so desire.