1994 Supreme(SC) 943

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and N. Venkatachala, JJ.
Civil Appeal No. 3870 of 1992 and W.P. (C) Nos. 253 of 1993 and 54 of 1994
Decided On: 22.09.1994
Mahinder Kumar Gupta and Ors. Appellants
Vs.
Union of India (UOI), Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas Respondent
Counsel for the Parties
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: S.R. Bhat, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: A.K. Ganguli, Senior Adv., B.K. Prasad, A.D.N. Rao and S.N. Terdal, Advs.

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 32,39(6),19(6),14,19(1)(g) - Awidow and daughter of a dealer in petroleum products - These matters relate to contracts of dealership or distributorship of petroleum products awardable by Government of India Undertakings - In first case admittedly appellants son in-law is already having a dealership for distribution of petroleum products - In second case it is an admitted fact that one of appellants partners is already having a dealership of petroleum products and in third case appellants mother is already having a dealership of petroleum products - Questions raised in these appeals/petitions are whether Government is justified in imposition of eligibility restrictions in award of retail outlets SKO-LD dealerships and LPG distributorships guidelines - Part of guidelines prescribes eligibility criteria viz nationality age on date of application educational qualifications residence SC/ST certificates eligibility for freedom-fighters and physically handicapped/government personnel disabled on duty/widows of government personnel who die in course of duty - Held, Preamble to Constitution envisages securing of economic and social justice to all its citizens accorded equality of status and of opportunity assuring dignity of individual - Article 39(6) postulates that ownership and control of material resources of community are to be so distributed as to best subserve common good - Clause prevents concentration of wealth and means of production to common detriment - Since grant of dealership or distributorship of petroleum products belongs to Government largesse Government in its policy of granting largesse have prescribed eligibility criteria - One of eligibility criteria is that one among 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 distribution of its petroleum products through dealership - Guidelines further intend to prevent frustration of State policy by process of legal ingenuity or subterfuge - One of criteria is relationship - Relationship criteria has been prescribed to see that persons who already had one dealership should not apply so that above objectives of Constitution are achieved - In Part Clause of relationship category a person from among specified near relatives has been made ineligible to apply for another dealership to any of nationalised oil companies - Petitioners/appellants dehors guidelines have no independent right to have business or avocation in distribution or production or ownership of one of petroleum products - Production and distribution of petroleum products are exclusive monopoly of State under Article 19(6) of Constitution - As a part of its policy of distribution of its largesse Government have prescribed eligibility criteria to persons to obtain dealership for distribution of petroleum products - Distribution of largesse of State is for common good and to subserve common good of as many persons as possible - Government 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 Preamble of Constitution is sought to be achieved - Therefore there is a reasonable nexus between object and prescription of eligibility criteria envisaged in guidelines - All those who satisfy eligibility criteria alone are entitled to apply for consideration of grant of dealership - It is true that in case of physically handicapped persons only three classes of 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 persons either have a dealership or relations who were found to be eligible under relationship criteria and had dealership then Clause of said guidelines gets attracted and such partnership also did not become eligible to apply for dealership/distributorship - Object of Clause appears to be that for those partners who either one among themselves or any of relations of one partners had a dealership other partner or specified relations also not be eligible to apply for grant of dealership individually or as a member of partnership - Therefore guidelines are based on public policy to give effect to constitutional creed of Part of Indian Constitution - Appeal Dismissed