2007 Supreme(SC) 47

2007(1) Supreme 848
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.K. Sabharwal, CJI., C.K. Thakker and R.V. Raveendran, JJ.
Mukund Swarup Mishra—Petitioner
versus
Union of India & Ors.—Respondents
Transferred Case (Civil) No. 100 of 2002
With
Transferred Case Nos. 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108 of 2002, SLP (C) Nos. 1394 of 2003, 11556, 11568, 16261 of 2002 and T.C.No. 57 of 2006
All Decided on 12-1-2007
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Gopal Subramanyam, ASG, (A.C.), Manjit Singh, AAG, Ram Jethmalani, Vinayak Dixit, M.L. Verma, Mukul Rohtagi, Vijay Hansaria, Uday U. Lalit, M.N. Krishnamani, Ravindra Shrivastava, Mahendra Anand, Jawahar Lal Gupta, M.N. Rao, Mahabir Sigh, P. Vishwanatha Shetty, R.P. Bansal, S.K. Kashote, Rajiv Shakdhar, Dinesh Dwivedi, V.A. Mohta, Sunil Kumar, S.K. Dubey, J. Dhankar, Sr. Advocates, Raghenth Basant, Rajshekhar Rao, Nikhil Nayyar (A.C.), Dayan Krishnan, (A.C.), Sudhir Kulshreshtha, A.P. Mayee, Ravindra K. Adsure, Sujatt-Ullah Khan, Ms. Asha Jain Madan, Mukesh Jain, Ambar Jain, Manish Pitale, Chander Shekhar Ashri, D.M. Nargolkar, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, K.S. Bhati, Ajay Majithia, Rajesh Kumar, Dr. Kailash Chand, H.K. Puri, Maninder Singh, Ms. Pratibha M. Singh, Gaurav Sharma, Sumeet Bhatia, K.K. Gupta, Sanjay V. Kharde, Ms. Chandan Ramamurthi, Annam D.N. Rao, G. Umapathy, Rakesh K. Sharma, K.K. Senthilvelan, P.V. Yogeshwaran, D.N. Goburdhun, Ms. Pinky Anand, Ms. Geeta Luthra, S.K. Kulkarni, M. Gireesh Kumar, Vijay Kumar, Ms. Vandana Sehgal, Ghanshyam, Satya Mital, Devender Singh, U. Hazarika, Satya Mitra, Ms. Sumita Hazarika, M.D. Adkar, Vishwajit Singh, Sanjay Sarin, Ms. Gagandeep, Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa, Ms. Somina S., Ashok Mathur, Mr. Manoj Swarup, Ajay Gupta, Uday Gupta, A.K. Behera, Amit Kumar, P. Chandra, S.K. Pandey, A.T.M. Sampath, Sanjay Kapur, Ms. Shubra Kapur, Ms. Aarti Singh, Srenik Singhvi, Rauf Rahim, Mohd. Faisal, Sudhanshu Choudhuri, Naresh Kumar, P.K. Jain, Anuvrat Sharma, Sanjay Kumar Singh, M.P. Shorawala, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Kunal Verma, Arjun, Ms. Philemon Nongbari, B.S. Banthia, Naveen Sharma, C. Mukund, Ms. Neeraj, Shashank, Bijoy Kumar Jain, Amit Pawan, S. Chandra Shekhar, Arun K. Sinha, Mukesh Kumar Sinha, Ajay Choudhary, Rajat Mahajan, Nimish Gupta, Ms. Kamla Jain, Sanjay Visen, Vinod Kumar Rai, T.V. George, Bharat Singh, U.S. Prasad, Nidhesh Gupta, Vinod Shukla, Deepak Goel, Ms. S. Janani, Sushil Kumar Jain, Puneet Jain, H.D. Thanvi, Ms. Pratibha Jain, Sarad Singhania, Piyush Jain, Manoj Swarup, Ms. Lalita Kohli, Anubhav Kumar (for M/s. Manoj Swarup & Co.), Krishnan Venugopal, Ms. Sonia Mathur, Shiv K. Goyal, Raj Kamal, P.K. Jain, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Shivangi, Anupam Lal Das, Amit Sharma, Y.P. Mahajan, P. Parmeswaran, P. Venkat Reddy, C.S.N. Mohan Rao, Rakesh Dahiya, Nikhil Jain, Ms. Preeti Singh, Devendra Singh, Imtiaz Ahmed, Ms. Naghma Imtiaz, Abhishek Anand (for M/s. Equity Lex Associates), Barun Kumar Sinha, Ms. Pratibha Sinha, Ms. Parminder Kaur, Saurabh Kirpal, Anupam K. Sanghi, Ms. Kavita Wadia, S.K. Kulkarni, Kh. Nobin Singh, Vijay Kumar, R. Santhan Krishnan, Ms. K. Radha Rani, Praveen Pandey, P. Vijay Kumar, D. Mahesh Babu, Ajay K. Agrawal, Ms. Alka Agrawal, Ms. Anamika Agrawal, A.P. Sahay, Anshuman Ashok, Kuldip Singh, Sudhir Kumar Gupta, Anurag Pandey, Mihir Kumar Chaudhary, Anil K. Chopra, Ujjwal Banerjee, S.K. Puri, Ms. Priya Puri, V.M. Chauhan, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Lakshmi Raman Singh, P.H. Parekh, Sameer Parekh, E.R. Kumar, Ms. Sonali Basu Parekh, Sanand Ramakrishnan, Rajeev Mishra, Ms. Shakun Sharma, Ms. Lata Krishnamurthi, Ms. P.R. Mala, Ms. Jina Mullick Das, Ms. Rukhmini Bobde (for M/s. P.H. Parekh & Co.), R.K. Maheshwari, Bhupender Yadav, R.C. Kohli, Alok Kumar, Ms. Asha Kochar, Ms. Babita Yadav, R.S. Suri, Ms. Suruchi Suri, Puneet Bali, Hittan Nehra, S.S. Jauhar, P. Jauhar, S.N. Bhat, D.M. Nargolkar, Goodwill Indeevar, P.S. Singh, Subhash Chandra, N.P. Singh, Vinod Sharma, Vikas Mahajan, Jitender Tripathi, Irshad Ahmad, Shivaji M. Jadhav, Munendra Kumar Singh, A.K. Singh, S.K. Tripathi, Shiv Prakash Pandey, Shiv Sagar Tiwari, Pranab Kumar Mullick, Krishan Venugopal, Prasad Vijayakumar, Siddharth Singh, A. Raghunath, Rajesh Mahale, Vipin Nair, P.B. Suresh (for M/s. Temple Law Firm), Dr. Sushil Balwada, Praneet Ranjan, Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Vishal Kumar, Ashok Kumar Gupta, Farrukh Rasheed, Arvind Kumar, Ms. Laxmi Arvind, Ms. Poonam Prasad, Ms. Madhurima Tatia, Indra Makwana, Mukesh Verma, Manish Shanker, M.R. Shamshad, Yash Pal Dhingra, Pravesh Thakur, Pramit Saxena, Ms. Anuradha Rustagi, S.V. Deshpande, Dipak Kumar Jena, Ms. Minakshi Jena, Pabitra Kumar Biswal, Harikesh Singh, Nitin S. Tambwekar, B.S. Sai, K. Rajeev, T.N. Singh, Rohit Pandey, Umang Tripathi, D.K. Garg, Ranbir Yadav, Avadh Kaushik, S.K. Srivastava, Dr. S.K. Verma, A. Verma, Anil S. Singh, Atul Kumar, Ms. Anita Kanungo, Sanjeev Malhotra, Ms. Anita Kanungo, Himanshu Shekhar, K.V. Mohan, Anil Kumar Tandale, Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay, Rajiv Talwar, Debasis Misra, Barun K. Sinha, Ms. Pratibha Sinha, B.K. Satija, Pramod Dayal, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Amol Chitale, Ms. Pragya Singh Baghel, Ms. Rekha Palli, T. Raja, Ms. D. Bharati Reddy, Sanjay Parikh, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, A.N. Singh, Jitin Sahni, Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Vinay Kumar Garg, Shiva Kumar Sinha, Shrish Kumar Misra, Ajit Kumar Sinha, K.K. Mohan, Jitendra Mohan Sharma, K.K. Rai, Prakash Shrivastava, Ms. Pradipti Shrivastava, Miten Mahapatra, C.N. Sree Kumar, Sanjay Jain, Mukesh K. Giri, Sudhir Nandrajog, Satyajit A. Desai, Ms. Anagha S. Desai, Amol N. Suryawanshi, Vikram Saluja, Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, R.S. Lambat, Ms. Naresh Bakshi, Tushar Bakshi, V.G. Pragasam, S. Vallinayagam, Vikas Mehta, C. Mukund, Shashank Sharma, Bijoy Kumar Jain, Parijat Sinha, Snehasish Mukherjee, Debapriya Samanta, S.C. Ghosh, Manish Pitale, Chander Shekhar Ashri, Ashok Kumar Singh, Naresh Kumar Gaur, Sapan Biswajit Meitel, Ms. Asha Jain Madan, Mukesh Jain, Ambar Jain, B.K. Sinha and Pawan, Advocates and Ms. Sarla Chandra, In-person.

IMPORTANT POINT
In case of allotment of retail outlets of petroleum products, LPG distributorship and SKO-LDO dealership, the Supreme Court had appointed a Committee to consider certain cases as to whether allotment had been made on the basis of political patronaze/linkage or other extraneous considerations weighed with the Board in making orders of allotment.

Headnote:(i) Constitution of India—Articles 32, 136 and 226—Allotment of retail outlets of petroleum products, LPG distributorship and SKO-LDO dealership—Cancellation of—A news item appeared in Indian Express dated 2.8.2002 alleging political patronage in allotment of retail outlets—In view of controversy in allotment, the Prime Minister directed the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas to cancel all allotments made with effect from January, 2000 till date—A formal order was issued by the Government of India on 9.8.2002 cancelling all allotments—Order challenged by aggrieved allottees—Supreme Court in Onkar Lal Bajaj case (2003) 2 SCC 673 disposed of all the petitions by setting aside the order of cancellation of allotment and by appointing a Committee to examine 413 cases of allotment—Committee was to decide as to whether allotment had been made on basis of political patronaze/linkage or other extraneous considerations weighed with the Board in making orders of allotment—Committee scrutinized 409 cases of alleged tainted allotments in the States of Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Chattisgarh, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka—Out of 409 cases examined, the Committee was of the view that in 297 allotments, selection could not be said to have been made on merits—Interim applications filed challenging findings of the Committee holding certain allotments being not made on merits—Whether the Committee went beyond the directions issued by the Supreme Court in observing that the allotment was not done in accordance with the guidelines—(No)—Direction of the Court was to consider extraneous considerations, if any, in alloment—Doctrine of promissory or equitable estoppel would not apply in such cases—Relief granted in border line cases of different States.

       Held : Reading Onkar Lal Bajaj in its entirety and the directions issued by this Court, it cannot be said that the Court was considering allotment only on the basis of political linkage/patronaze. It is clear that the proceedings had been initiated because of news reports appeared in Indian Express and this Court was called upon to consider the action taken by the Central Government of cancellation of all allotments. It was, therefore, obligatory on the part of the aggrieved parties to satisfy the Court that the action taken by the Government was not in consonance with law. This Court, keeping in view the circumstances in their entirety, set aside the order as being violative of principles of natural justice and fair play and directed the Committee to consider certain cases as to whether allotment had been on the basis of political patronaze/linkage or other extraneous considerations weighed with the Board in making orders of allotment. In fact, in Onkar Lal Bajaj, the Court noted the submission of the allottees that selection by DSBs in their favour was on merits and not on account of any political or other extraneous consideration.(Para 20)

       The phrase ‘other consideration’, in our opinion, therefore, cannot be read ejusdem generis with political linkage/connection/patronaze. The expression ‘other consideration’ would take within its sweep all considerations other than merit of the case. Ultimately, the direction of this Court was not a statute nor it can be considered as an enactment. In the light of the above, a Committee was appointed and directions were issued. The Committee considered the question on merits. It, therefore, could not be said that the Court was to consider only political linkage/patronaze and the Committee had exceeded its powers and/or jurisdiction in taking into account other extraneous matters. In fact, the direction of this Court was to consider extraneous considerations, if any, in allotment and if so, to pass an appropriate order and to report on those aspects. We are, therefore, not inclined to uphold the preliminary objection of the learned counsel for the petitioners. (Paras 22 and 23)

       We are also not impressed by the argument of the petitioners that the doctrine of promissory or equitable estoppel would apply. May be that the petitioners have spent some amount. But once the allotment itself was found to be vitiated, obviously they cannot claim any benefit as allotment was contrary to law. Moreover, such allotment has been made in remote past and even though an order of cancellation had been passed by the Central Government as early as in August, 2002, the allottees have been protected by interim order passed by this Court. Even after the decision in Onkar Lal Bajaj, interim order was continued. In the circumstances, for more than four years interim order is in favour of allottees even though the allotment is found to be illegal or contrary to law. In our opinion, therefore, it is not open to the allottees whose allotments have been found to be vitiated to plead equity. (Para 24)

       The case of Janendra Kumar Rai appears to be a border line case and in the facts and circumstances, in our opinion, allotment could not have been cancelled. Application of Janendra Kumar Rai is, therefore, allowed and recommendation for cancellation of allotment in his case is not accepted.(Para 28)

       So far as Siddharaj Bharatsingh Rana and Manish Kantibhai Solani are concerned, no political connection was found and they are border line cases. In view of the said fact, in our opinion, it would be appropriate if allotment in their favour is not disturbed. We, therefore, allow these applications and set aside the cancellation.(Para 31)

       So far as Smt. Krishna Kanwar, Kundan Sharma, Prem Ratan and Rameshwar Khandelwar are concerned, it appears that they are in the nature of border line cases and we, therefore, hold that in respect of those four applicants, allotment may continue. The applications by those four are allowed and the cancellation is set aside.(Para 34)

       So far as cases of Shri Surinder Singh, Chander Kant Bhatia, Gurpreet Singh, Smt. Kanta Rani Smt. Suman Lata, Ms. Ruby Sekhri, Mr. Manmohan Singh, Mr. Rajesh Madan and Mr. Tejinder Singh are concerned, they appear to be border line cases. In our view, it may not be appropriate to cancel the allotment in favour of these nine persons. Their applications are allowed.(Para 35)

       (ii) WORDS AND PHRASES—Phrase ‘other consideration’—It would take within its sweep all considerations other than merit of the case—Phrase cannot be read ejusdem generis with political linkage/connection/patronaze.(Para 22)