Point of Law : It is not the function or forte of this Court to decide the optimal or competitive price at which diesel should be sold to the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

C.S. Dias, J.

The intra-Court appeals are filed by the respondents 2 to 4 in W.P(C) 9414/2022 ? the Public Sector Oil Marketing Companies ? aggrieved by the interim order passed in the writ petition, directing them to sell high-speed diesel to the writ petitioner ? the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation ? at the market price available for Retail Outlets. The parties are referred to as per their status in the writ petition.

2. The concise facts in the writ petition, relevant for the determination of the appeals, are:

2.1. The petitioner is a State Transport undertaking established under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the respondents 2 to 4 (hereinafter collectively referred to as ‘OMCs’) to increase the price of high-speed diesel (in short ‘diesel’), sold in bulk to the petitioner, higher than the market price of diesel, approximately more than Rs.21/-per litre, which is violative of Articles 14 and 19 (i) (g) of the Constitution of India.

2.2. The petitioner is the largest establishment in the State, with 26578 employees and 41,000 pensioners. Before the pandemic, the petitioner used to transport nearly 35,00,000 passengers every day using 6241 buses on 6389 routes. The petitioner operates the schedules and pays the salaries and other emoluments to its employees. It is the State Government that fixes the fare tariff considering the various aspects like fuel prices, tax, and revision of minimum wages to the workers. The petitioner cannot demand the Government to effect changes in the fare tariff due to its commitment to the society.

2.3. The respondents 2 and 3 are Petroleum Corporations owned by the first respondent – the Union of India. The fourth respondent is a subsidiary of the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation. The fifth respondent is the Board constituted under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2006.

2.4. The petitioner requires 300 to 400 kilolitres of diesel per day. The petitioner has 72 consumer pumps across the State. Being a bulk consumer of petroleum products, the petitioner has entered into separate agreements with the respondents 2 to 4.

2.5. Fuel prices were fixed by the first respondent, and the rules were revised from time to time by imposing restrictions on pricing. The pricing of petroleum products was brought under the Administered Pricing Mechanism (in short, ‘APM’) effective July 1975. The APM was dismantled from 1.4.2002, starting with aviation turbine fuel, followed by petrol and diesel. As an aftermath of the dismantling of the APM, there is an unprecedented hike in the price of petroleum products as per the whims and fancies of the respondents 2 to 4.

2.6. The petitioner was enjoying the price concession granted by the first respondent to all the bulk consumers of the OMCs. However, the benefit was withdrawn in 2013, and a non-subsidized market-determined price was fixed. Although the petitioner and other State Transport Corporations challenged the withdrawal of subsidy before the High Courts and the Supreme Court, the challenge was rejected by the Supreme Court in the case reported in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation [(2018) 12 SCC 518] finding that the concession granted by the Government to its beneficiaries cannot confer upon them a legally enforceable right.

2.7. Initially, the price of diesel supplied to consumer pumps was less than the price supplied to retail outlets. By the end of January 2022, the price difference between the two classes of outlets got gradually reduced. By the first week of February 2022, the price of diesel supplied to consumer pumps skyrocketed to touch Rs.121.35 per litre from Rs.88/-. Due to the unforeseen price hike, as of 17.3.2022, the petitioner is paying Rs.21/-per litre more than the retail consumers for diesel.

2.8. The private bus operators, who are competitors of the petitioner, are operating on the same fare tariff fixed by the Government but ar