JUDGMENT

G.B.PATTANAIK

(1) IN this batch of appeals the judgment of Delhi High Court, cancelling the allotment made by the concerned minister from out of his so- called discretionary quota on petroleum dealership as well as LPG dealership is under challenge. Prior to 1995, the minister of petroleum in exercise of his discretion had been allotting retail outlets for petroleum products, LPG dealership and SKO dealership, without having any prescribed norms. A public interest litigation had been filed in this Court by Centre for Public Interest Litigation under Article 32 of The Constitution, praying that guidelines to regulate the exercise of discretion in the matter of such allotment, which results in exercise of the discretion arbitrarily be fixed. It may be stated that initially a prayer had also been made in that application to cancel the dealership in favour of respondent no. 4, but that prayer stood deleted and an amended petition was filed as the said respondent did not accept the dealership in question. This Court after hearing the counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Attorney General, issued a set of. guidelines for discretionary allotment of petroleum products agencies to ensure that the exercise of discretion in making such allotments are in conformity with the rule of law and by excluding the likelihood of arbitrariness and minimising the area of discretion. The said decision of this Court has since been reported in the case of Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India and Ors., [1995 Supp.(3) SCC 382]. In para (4) of the aforesaid judgment, the Court had directed as under:

"WE hereby direct that the above-quoted norms/guidelines etc. shall be followed by the central government in making all such discretionary allotments of retail outlets for petroleum products, LPG dealership and SKO dealership, hereafter."

The Common Cause had filed a petition under Article 32 on the basis of a news item which appeared in a national newspaper that the minister of petroleum was personally interested in making allotment of petrol pumps in favour of 15 persons, who were either the relations of his personal staff or sons of the ministers, or sons/relations of the chairman and members of the oil selection boards, praying for cancellation of allotments made inter alia on the ground that the allotments had been made by the concerned minister, mala fide and the decision is arbitrary and motivated by extraneous considerations. The court ultimately cancelled the allotments made in favour of the 15 personsmentioned in the petition, on a conclusion that the allotments are arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide and wholly illegal. The court also issued certain other directions in relation to the allottees and called upon the concerned minister to show cause as to why a direction be not issued to the appropriate police authority to register a case and initiate prosecution against him for criminal breach of trust or any other offence under law and in addition, why he should not be liable to pay damages for his mala fide action in allotting petrol pumps to 15 persons mentioned therein. This judgment of the Court is reported in [JT 1996 (8) SC 613 = 1996 (6) SCC 530]. While the Common Cause case was pending in this Court, civil writ petition Nos. 4003 and 4430 of 1995 had been filed in Delhi High Court by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation, as public interest litigation, which were pending in Delhi High Court. In those two petitions, allotment of petrol pumps/gas agencies to various persons during the period 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 had been challenged. A transfer petition had been filed in this Court, which was registered as transfer petition no. 127/96 and this Court had issued notice in the transfer petition and stayed further proceedings before the High Court. In an affidavit filed by the ministry of petroleum in the aforesaid transfer petition, the then joint secretary had stated t