( 1 ) FROM January 1993 till 1996. 179 retail outlets (Petrol Pumps), 155 LPG distributerships and 45 SKO/ LDO dealerships under discretionary quota were allotted by the Minister. In Delhi Petrol Pumps allotted by Oil Selection Board during this period were 64 in number and the Petrol Pumps allottee under discretionary quota were 65 in number. In Bombay. 4 Petrol Pumps were allotted by Board and 3 under discretionary quota by the Minister. 05hcd/97-2

( 2 ) THE examination of files clearly shows that these are not cases of aberrations here or aberralion there but are cases which show pattern of favouritism.

( 3 ) IN these cases where the allotments of petrol pumps etc. made by the Minister under his discretionary quota have been called in question, it is necessary to lay down as to what is the concept of discietion, . . Discretion implies good faith in discharging public duties. The exercise of discretion lias to be based on relevant consideraions. When it is exercised by taking into extraneous considerations, such action has to be quashed. The concept of absolute. untrampled or unfettered discretion is wholly inappropriate to a public authority. When given power to exercise discretion it has to be used for public good. The concept of unfettered discretion is appropriate only when dealing with a private property and not when dealing with public property. discretion does not empower a person to do what he likes. He has to act reasonably. When it is found that no right thinking or conscientious person would have exercised the discretion in the manner it was exercised, the action will have to be quashed. The power is to use the discretion and not abuse it. The authority granted discretion has to exercise power in a fiduciary capacity. If the court finds that there were illegitimate motives in exercised of the discretion , the action would not be sustained. While going into individual cases, we have kept in view that it is not for this Court to usurp the discretion of public authority. If the decision to make discretionary allotment is within the confines of reasonableness, this Court will not go into the merits, even if two views are possible. But at the same time, arbitrary exercise of discretion cannot be legitimated by this Court. The Court may overlook certain aberrations and allow considerable freedom of discretion on being satisfied that the public authority was acting bonafide but at the same time when it is found that by exercising discretionary powers allotments were given only as benevolence to those who do not deserve it. and the grant of such benevolence was for illegitimate motive, the Court is duty bound to set right the wrong.

( 4 ) IN light of aforesaid principles, we would first notice the grievance as brought out before this Court by the petitioner a Society named centre for Public Interest Litgaion in which many senior advocates are said to be founder members. We would also briefly notice the circumstances under which individual cases of allotments came up for consideration before us.

( 5 ) THE grievance set out in the petition is that allotments or retail outlets of Petrol Pumps, Distributorsnips of LPG Gas and kerosene made by Respondent No. 3 Satish Sharma under the discretionary quota of the Minister during his tenure as the Minister of State for Petroleum and Natural Gas were arbitrary and malafide. It lias been claimed that these allotments are an instrument of personal profit, patronagp and plunder to the State Exchequer which would have received crores of rupees if the same were auctioned. Such allotments, it has been alleged, have been made for benefiting favoured persons at the expense of State Exchequer and all-such allotments are illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The validity of allotments made by Oil Selection Boards have also been questioned on similar grounds in C. W. 4430/95.

( 6 ) OR 2nd November, 1995 this court directed the