ONKAR LAL BAJAJ ETC. ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ETC. ETC

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 605

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL, H.K. SEMA

Judgment text

ONKAR LAL BAJAJ ETC. ETC. v UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ETC. ETC. DECEMBER 20, 2002 [Y. K. SABHARWAL AND H. K. SEMA, JJ. ] Constitution ofIndia, 1950 : Article 14-Al/otment of Petrol Pumps by Government-Controversy raised regarding some allotments-Cancellation of all the a/lotments- Chal/enged as arbi1ra1y and violative oflhe provisiotr-Held, equal lreatmenl ofunequals is inequalily-To put bolh categories, /he tainted and the res/ al par is unjustified, arbitrary and unconslitutional-Alleged lainted allotments requiredlo be scrutinized by independenl Commillee-Directionfor constilulion ofCommillee-Cancellation order quashed except in respect ofcases referred lo the Committee. Ar1icle 226--Judicia/ Review-Scope of-Arbitrary exercise ofexecutive power-Deserves 10 be quashed-Bui if two views are possible and the Government lakes one ofit, ii would not be. amenable to judicial review on the ground that other view, according to the Court is a heller view.

Adminislra/ive law : Governance-Principle of-Held, governance has to be tested on the /ouchstone ofjustice, equityandfai1play and ifit is not based thereon, but to achieve popular accolade, 1he decision cannol be allowed 10 operate. Words and Phrases-"Public inleres/'' and "probily in governance"- Meaning of Since January 2000, allotments were made with respect to retail outlets of diesel and petrol, LPG distributorship, Superior kerosene Oil (SKO) and Light Diesel Oil (LDO) dealerships, to 3760 intending persons, on the recommendation of Dealer Selection Boards (DSB). Media exposed 417 names as tainted allotments. The controversy regarding 160 out of these names were raised upto Sth August, 2002 and regarding the rest it was raised between 6th and 24th August, 2002. In view of the controversy raised by the media, Prime Minister reviewed the matter on 5th August, 2002 and directed the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas to initiate steps to cancel all the allotments made w. e. r.

January 2000 till 5th August, 2002. Thereafter formal order was passed by the Ministry on 9th August,' 2002 for cancellation or all the·allotments except the allotments made to the allottees under Operation Vijay Scheme. Writ Petitions were filed in various High Courts challenging legality of the order dated 9th August, 2002. Union of India filed transfer petitions and this Court directed transfer of certain writ petitions to itself. Writ petitions filed by allottees whose cases were highlighted by the media, were transferred as another category of representative cases. A large number of intervention applications were also filed by different categories of persons. Petitioners and interveners contended that en masse cancellation of - D allotments was an arbitrary exercise ofexecutive power and the same was unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 of the Constitut. ion.

Respondent-State contended that the order was justified as the same was taken in order to uphold the probity in governance, ensure fair play in action and in larger public interest; that allotments could en masse be legally cancelled without individually examining each case and without affording any opportunity to the concerned . to ~epresent their cases; that the petitioners had no legal right which could be enforced u/s 226 of the Constitution as the same was only a contractual right; that the petitions were only a disguise suits under Specific Relief Act despite the fact that the contract was not·enforceable even under the Act because the agreements could be cancelled without assigning any reason. Disposing oft. he petition, the Court HELD: I. I. The mere reason that a controversy has been raised by itself cannofclothe the Government with the power to pass such a drastic order which has a devastating effect on a large number of people.

In governance, controversies are bound to arise. In a given situation, depending upon facts and figures, it may be legally permissible to resort to such en masse cancellation where executive finds that primafacie a large number of such selections were tainted and segregation of good and bad would be difficult and time consuming affair. In the present situation ONKAR LAL BAJAJ v. U. 0. 1. 607 where the controversy raised was in respect of 5 to 10%, en masse cancellation would be unjustified and arbitrary. Impugned order was a result of panic reaction of the Government. No facts and figures were gone into. Without application of mind to any of relevant consideration, a decision was taken to cancel all allotments. The impugned action is clearly against fair play in action. It cannot be held to be reasonable. It is nothing but arbitrary. 1626-F-H; 627-AI The Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha and Ors. , 119791 l SCC 648 and B. Ramanjini and Ors. v. State ofA. P.

and Ors. , 120021 s sec 533, distinguished. Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi and Ors. v. State ofUP. and Ors. , 119911 l sec 212, relied on. 1. 2. The solution by resorting to cancellation of all was worse than the problem. The equal treatment to unequals is nothing but inequality. To put both categories - tainted and the rest - at par is wholly unjustified, arbitrary, unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 1627-FI. 1. 3. The plea of probity in governance or fair play in action motivating the impugned action cannot be accepted. No case was 1 examined, not even from a prima facie angle to find out whether there was any substance in the media exposure. None examined the impact that was likely to result because of en masse cancellation. Many had resigned their jobs. It was necessary because of such a stipulation in 1.. 01. Many had taken huge loans.

There were many Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, war widows and those whose near relation had died as a result of terrorist activities. The effect of none was considered. How could all those large number against whom there was not even insinuation could be clubbed with the handful of those who were said to have been allotted these dealerships/distributorships on account of political connection and patronage. The two were clearly unequals. 1627-E, C-01 1. 4. Article 14 guarantees to everyone equality before law. Unequals cannot be clubbed. Likewise, an arbitrary exercise of executive power deserves to be quashed and that an order passed without application of mind deserves to be annulled being an arbitrary exercise of power. At the same time if two views are possible and the Government takes one of it, it would not be amenable to judicial review on the ground that other view, according to the Court, is a better view. (620-F-Hl l. S.

The expressions 'public interest' or 'probity in governance' cannot be put in a strait jacket. 'Public interest' takes into its fold several factors. There cannot be any hard and fast rule to determine what is public interest. The circumstances in each case would determine ";'hether Government action was taken is in public interest or was taken to uphold probity in governance. (624-B-CI 1. 6. The role model for governance and decision taken thereofshould manifest equity, fair play and justice. The cardinal principle ofgovernance in a civilized society based on rule of law not only has to rise above the nexus of vested interests and nepotism and eschew window dressing. The act of governance has to withstand the test of judiciousness and impartiality and avoid arbitrary or capricious actions. Therefore, the principle ofgovernance has to be tested on the touchstone ofjustice, equity and fair play and if, the decision is not based on justice, equity and fair D.

play and has taken into consideratipn other matters though on the face of it,_the decision may look legitimate but as a matter of fact, the reasons are not based on values but to achieve popular accolade, that decision cannot be allowed to operate. (624-0-E[ 1. 7. If media exposure that the allotments were made either to the high political functionaries themselves or their near and dear ones is· correct, the authorities would not only be justified in examining such cases but it would be their duly to do so. Instead of fulfilling that duty and obligation, the executive cannot unjustly resort lo cancellation of all the allotments en masse by treating unequals as equals without even prima facie examining any cases exposed by the media, if hue and cry is made that certain allotments have been made to silting members of Parliament or their wives or Members of Legislature or their relations, the public, media and the opposition would be justified in raising eye-brows.

It is a different matter that on independent examination nothing may be found in those ca~es• . [628-C-E[ 1. 8. It is evident from the facts that the cancellation oflhe agreements is not for violation of any term thereof. The cancellation is on account of a policy decision taken by the Gonrnment. The execution of agreement is not being denied on account of any ineligibility of any such LOI holders. or any discrepancy having been found in what was required to be fulfilled by them. Therefore, the cases of LOI holders are no ilifferent in ONKAR LAL BAJAJ v. U. 0. 1. 609 comparison to those cases where agreements have been entered into. Similar is the p . ' Social Studies 95% 4. Everyday Science 90% 5. Elementary Mathematics 100% 6. Economics and Civics 92% 7. Elementary Physiology & Hygiene 96% 8. Geography 99% 9. History 88% 10: Physics 70% 11. Chemistry 100% 12. Advance Mathematics 99% 13.

Sanskrit 100%" Noticing that all the candidates at the centre in question had obtained marks of more than 90%, the Court came to the conclusion that the student had assistance from an outside source. The Court had also examined the answer books. Tims, it was held that the examination was vitiated by practicing unfair means on a mass scale and, under these circumstances, it was observed that the Board could not be asked to hold a detailed enquiry into the matter to satisfy itself as to which of the candidate had not adopted unfair means and the examination had to go as a whole. The facts of the present case are altogether different. There was no examination of the allegations made in the media and also that the percentage of alleged tainted allotments was not such so as to come to the conclusion that there was en masse bungling by the 59 DSBs nor any such conclusion was reached by the respondents. The other decision in the case of 8. Ramanjini and Ors. v. State ofA. P. and Ors.

, [2002) 5 SCC 533 cited by learned Solicitor General has also no relevance for the present controversy. That was a case where it was found that not only there was scope for mass copying and mass copying did take place, in addition to leakage ofquestion papers which was brazenly published in a newspaper and the photocopies of the question papers were available for sale at a ·price of Rs. 2000 each and, under these circumstances, the Government decided to cancel the examination of the centre in question. This decision is of no assistance for the present controversy. Mahabir Auto Stores and Ors. v. Indian Oil Corporation and Ors. , [1990] 3 SCC 752 was a case where the challenge of the appellant was to the action of the respondent, Indian Oil Corporation in discontinuing the supply of all kinds of lubricants to the appellant.

One of the contention raised by the Indian Oil Corporation was that there was no written agreement with it and there was only an ad hoc arrangement which could not be enforced, particularly, in a writ jurisdiction. Rejecting the contention, this Court observed that the respondent's decision can be impeached on the ground that it is arbitrary or violative of Article 14 on any of the grounds available in public law field. It was further held that the action had to be fair and reasonable and that even in the field of pub:ic law, the relevant persons concerned or to be affected, should be taken into confidence. Whether and in what circumstances that confidence should be taken into consideration cannot be laid down on any strait-jacket basis. It depends on the nature of the right involved and nature of the power- sought to be exercised in a particular situation. Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi and Ors. v. State ofUP. and Ors.

, [1991] I SCC 212 was a case in which en masse cancellation of panel ofGovernment / Law Officers was questioned before this Court. While quashing the impugned order, this Court observed that the act ofterminating their appointment in one stroke was without application of mind. It was further observed that it would be too much to assume that every Government counsel was required to be replaced in order to streamline the conduct of the Government cases and indeed, that is not even the case of the State which itself says that many of ' them were to be reappointed. It is not the case of the respondents that most or large number of selections in the present case were tainted. In the case in hand, the only reason for the en masse cancellation was that a 'controversy' had been raised. There was no application of mind to any case. Admitted norie of cases was examined. In Shri/ekha Vidyarthi's case, this Court held that arbitrariness is writ large on the impugned circular.

In the State action public interest has to be the prime guiding consideration, hi Shrilekha Vidharthi 's case, it was held that the impugned State action was taken with only one object in view, i. e. , to terminate all existing appointments irrespective of the subsistence or expiry of the tenure or suitability of the existing incumbents and that by one omnibus order, the appointments of all Government counsel in the State of Uttar Pradesh were terminated. It was also noticed that no common reason applicable to all of them justifying their termination in one stroke on a reasonable ground had been shown. The-position iS similar in the present case. The expressions 'public interest' or 'probity in governance' cannot be put in a strait jacket. 'Public interest' takes into its fold several factors. There cannot be any hard and fast rule to determine what is public interest.

The circumstances in each case would determine whether Government action was taken is in public interest or was taken to uphold probity in governance. The role model for governance and decision taken thereof should manifest equity, fair play and justice. The cardinal principle of governance in a civilized society based on rule of law not only has to base on transparency but must create an impression that the decision making was motivated on the consideration of probity. The Government has to rise above the nexus of vested interests and nepotism and eschew window dressing. The act of governance has to withstand the test of judiciousness and impartiality and avoid arbitrary or capricious actions. Therefore.

the principle of governance has to be tested on the touchstone of justice, equity and fair play and if the decision is not based on justice, equity and fair play and has taken into consideration other matters, though on the face of it, the decision may look legitimate but as a matter of fact, the reasons are not based on values but to achieve popular accolade, that decision cannot be allowed to operate. . 1 Now, before reverting to the contention of learned Solicitor General that the impugned order was issued in public interest so as to ensure fair play in action, the factual position of the DSBs may be noticed and a contention raised by Mr. Nariman on the basis of averments made in T. C. No. 90/2002 be considered. There were 59 DSBs throughout the country. In bigger States, the number of DSBs was more. In UP, there were nine such Boards, in Maharashtra they were four DSBs, five were the boards in Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar.

On 9th May, 2002, when the DSBs were discontinued, 18 DSBs were chaired by retired High Court Judges and remaining by retired District or Additional District Judges. In Transfer Case No. 90 of 2002, Mr. Nariman, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the entire exercise of canceJlation was a result of the name ofthe Prime Minister's relative being involved on account of which the Prim. e Minister by a single politically motivated stroke, ordered en masse cancellation. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel to the allegations made in para 2.

3 which are as under : "piqued and angered by the expose of the misdeeds of the Petroleum Ministry in which the name of the Prime Minister's relative was involved and the opposition creating a raw in the Parliament and paralyzing the proceedings in the Parliament, the Prime Minister in a single politically motivated stroke ordered cancellation of as many as 3158 petrol pumps, LPG agencies and kerosene oil outlets allotted across the country since January 2000 and directed the third respondent that the cancelled petrol pumps, LPG agencies and kerosene oil outlets would all be auctioned on the basis of competitive bidding and directed the Petroleum Ministry to work out the modalities for reallotment. The decision to cancel the allotments was taken by the Prime Minister at a meeting attended by the Deputy Prime Minister L. K.

Advani, Finance Minister Jaswant Singh, Petroleum Minister Ram Naik, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Pramod Mahajan and Information and Broadcasting Minister Sushma Swaraj. The Prime Minister refused to wilt under pressure from a Section of the party to brazen it out and had final say deciding on cancellation of all allotments despite Ram Naik keeping up his more than brave face that there was no wrong doing at all. " Our attention was also drawn by learned counsel to only reply to the averment which is to the following effect ~ "With reference to para 2. 3. 1, 2. 3. 2, 2. 3. 3, 2. 3. 4 and 2. 4 of the petition, it is submitted that the contents therein are the excerpts quoted from various newspapers and hence need no reply''. The submission of Mr. Nariman is that the avennents in para 2. 3 are not excerpts from a newspaper but an assertion of the petitioner and the same having not been denied shall be deemed to be admitted. It may be that the averment in para 2.

3 is not an excerpt from newspaper and is an assertion, as contended by Mr. Nariman but such general and vague assertion without any material in support thereof and which, in fact, is an inference from newspapers is hardly sufficient to attribute ma/a fldes. The contention of Mr. Nariman, thus, cannot be accepted. Reverting now to the contention that the impugned action was in public interest, it may first to be noticed that when the decision was taken on 5th August, 2002, the only reason was that a controversy had been raised about certain allotments. We have earlier noticed that the guidelines provide for a mechanism to look Into the complaint made against selections. Further, according to the respondents, in respect o'f 360 complaints m. ade against the Chairmen/Members of the DSBs, inquiries were conducted by Director General, Anti Adulteration Cell and out ofwhich 242 cases were recommended to be closed.

This means no substance were found in 242 complaints out of 360; 39 cases were sub-judice; in 27 cancellation of selection had been recommended and 45 cases had been referred to the Minisfry for its decision on various grounds by Director General and Oil Companies. In addition, in 7 cases, decision on cancellation of the selection of the first empanelled candidate had been taken by DSB/oil companies. The effect ofthe impugned action is the termination of agreements despite the recommendation of the closure of the complaints and only for the reason that a 'controversy' had been raised in relation to some allotments. Further, in some cases, the challenge to selection had failed in courts. The guidelines, as earlier noticed, provide for reservation for defence personnel, freedom fighters, outstanding sports persons, para military/Police/Government personnel, physically handicapped persons and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

There was no application· of mind as to the effect on all these categories as a result of en masse cancellation. The contention of the learned Solicitor General that in order to uphold the probity in governance, ensure fair play in action and in larger public interest, the Government took a decision to cancel the allotments is clearly an afterthought besides untenable even otherwise. p The mere reason that a 'controversy' has been raised by itself cannot clothe the Government with the power to pass such a drastic order which has a devastating effect on a large number of people. In governance, controversies are bound to arise. In a given situation, depending upon facts and figures, it may be legally permissible to· resort. to such en masse cancellation where executive finds that prima facie a large number of such selections were tainted and segregation of good and bad would be difficult and time consuming affair. That is, however, not the case.

Here the controversy raised was in respect of 5 to 10%, as earlier indicated. In such a situation, en masse cancellation would be unjustified and arbitrary. It seems that the impugned . order was a result of panic reaction of the Government. No facts and figures were gone into. Without application of mind to any of relevant consideration, a decision was taken to cancel all allotments. The impugned action is clearly against fair play in action. It cannot be held to be reasonable. It is nothing but arbitrary. Regarding the probity in governance, fair play in action and larger public interest, except contending that as a result of media exposure, the Government in public interest decided to cancel all allotments, nothing tangible was brought to our notice. On 5th August, 2002 only reason was that 'a controversy' had been raised.

In order dated 9th August, 2002 the reasons given are that facts and circumstances considered and to ensure fair play in action and in public interest, it was passed. In counter affidavit, the aspect of probity in governance has been brought in. Be that as it may, the fact remains that admittedly, no case was examined, not even from a primafacie angle to find out whether there was any substance in the media exposure. None examined the impact that was likely to result because ofen masse cancellation. Many had resigned their jobs. It was necessary because of such a stipulation in LOI. Many had taken huge loans. There were many Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes, war widows and those whose near relation had died as a result ofterrorist activities. The effect of none was considered.

How could all those large number against whom there was not even insinuation could be clubbed with the handful of those who were said to have been allotted these dealerships/distributorships on account of political ·connection and patronage. The two were clearly unequals. The rotten apples cannot be equated with good apples. Under these circumsiances, the plea of probity in governance or fair play in action motivating the impugned action cannot be accepted. The impugned order, looked from any angle cannot stand the scrutiny of law. The solution by resorting to cancellation of all was worse than the problem. Cure was worse than the disease. The equal treatment to unequals is nothing but inequality. To put both categories tainted and the rest at par is wholly unjustified, arbitrary, unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 ofthe Constitution.

It is apparent from the guidelines that the dealerships ar:id distributorships were provided to be given to the allottees as a welfare measure. Even in respect of open category there is a limitation for the income of the applicant being not more than Rs. 2 lakhs per annum so as to be eligible for consideration by the DSBs. The DSBs are required to consider the applications within the parameters of the guidelines and select the best applicant. If the DSBs in some cases have selected someone not on merits but as a result of political connections/considerations and positions ofthe applicant, undoubtedly such allotments deserve to be quashed. In Common Cause case (supra), this Court on examination of the facts held that the allotment to the sons to the Ministers were only to oblige the Ministers. The allotments to the Members of the Oil Selection Boards and their/Chairmen's relations had been done to· influence them and to have favours from them.

It was observed that a minister who is the executive head of the department conM:med, when distributing benefits and largesses in a welfare state in the form of allotment of plots, houses, petrol pumps, gas agencies, mineral leases, contracts, quotas and licences etc. has to deal with people's property in a fair and just manner. He holds all these as a trust on behalf of the people. He cannot commit breach of the trust reposed in him by the people. The aforesaid observations would apply with equal if not more force to DSBs if media exposure that the allotments were made either to the high political functionaries themselves or their near and dear ones is correct, the authorities would not only be justified in examining such cases but it would be their duty to do so.

Instead of fulfilling that duty and obligation, the executive cannot unjustly resort to cancellation ofall the allotments en masse by treating unequals as equals without even primafacie examining any cases exposed by the media. If hue and cry is made that certain allotments have been made to sitting Members of Parliament or their wives or Members of Legislature or their relations, the public, media and _the opposition would be justified in raising eye-brows. It is a different matter that on independent examination nothing may be found in those cases. As noticed earlier, 417 names of alleged tainted allotments appeared in media between 2nd August and 24th August, 2002. As a representative category, I0 cases were transferred to this Court. The respondents have given to us particulars of 413 cases which appeared in Indian Express ,---- four being not traceable according to them. The allegations in Transferred Case Nos.

I00 to I09 are substantially these: One ofthe transferred cases relates to allotment ofSKO/LDO dealership at Lal Bangla, Kanpur in open category in favour of the son of Member of Parliament from ruling party. It is a case where letter of intent has been issued though agreement was not entered into before the cancellation and the outlet is not operational. According to the petitioner, he had made huge investments, purchased land and completed other formalities and was a graduate of 26 years of age and 'being son of a Member of Parliament was not a disqualification. It appears that the concerned DSB had interviewed 32 applicants. Ifbeing the son ofMember of Parliament was not a disqualification, at the same time, it was also not a qualification.

The probity in good governance requires the examination of such a matter by an independent ·person so as to clear the doubts or 'controversy' so as to come to the conclusion whether the allotment was on merits or as a result ofthe political connections. The controversy cannot be resolved or put to rest by burying it under carpet by cancelling all allotments by treating unequals as equals. Another transferred case pertains to allotn:ient of HPC retail outlet at Khaildvi, District Solapur, Maharashtra in favour of the petitioner under the Scheduled Castes reserved category. The outlet is company owned dealer operated. 23 applicants were interviewed. The applicant is a wife ofa Member of Parliament of a political party supporting party in power. The district wherein the outlet has been allotted to the petitioner falls within the parliamentary constituency of the husband of the petitioner. The petrol pump is said to be operational.

According to the petitioner; she made huge investments and 16 persons have been employed by her. If the allotment in her favour is not on merits and is on account of the applicant being wife of a Member of Parliament, the afor~said considerations pleaded by her would be wholly irrelevant. Surely an independent probe is necessary. Someone has to look into the matter. In one case, the allotment of IOC's retail outlet at Udaipur is in favour of a Member of Parliament of the main . Political party in opposition. The contention ofthe. allottee, however, is that she, as a condition of LOI, resigned her job of Professor from an Educational Institution. No equity can be claimed on account of any step or action taken to fulfill the condition of LOI if the selectio. n itsblf is illegal. · · . One ofthe transferred cases concerns 8 allotments in Maharashtra State. The allegation in the newspaper was that brother of petitioner no.

I is District President of the Ruling Party and was Member of Parliament; husband of petitioner no. 2 is a sitting MLA, petitioner no. 3 is sister-in-law of a sitting MLA, father of petitioner no. 4 is a sitting MLA, father of petitioner no. 5 was a President of District Unit of the political party some years back, petitioner no. 6 himself is a sitting MLA, petitioner no. 7 and petitioner no. 8 are political workers of the Ruling Party. All the 8 petitioners of course contend that the · allotments in their favour were made on merits and not as a result of political patronage. The allegation in one of the transferred cases is that the allottee is sonin-law of a former Member of Parliament whereas in another transferred case, the allegation is that the. allottee is a son ofa former MLA: In these two .. cases, service report on the petitioners was awaited. Another transferred case relates to IOC's LPG distributorship. The allegation is that the allottee was the constituency .

secretary of the Ruling Party. Lot has been issued though the outlet is not operational. According to the petitioner since on merit no. 2 was a press reporter his name has been included with ma/a fide intentions. Another transferred case relates to IOC retail outlet at Sawar, Ajmer where the allegation is about the allottee being son of a party functionary. In one of the transferred cases the allegation is that the father of the allottee is an Inspector General of Anti Corruption Cell in Rajasthan Police. All the applicants claim that the selection by the DSBs in their favour was on merits and not on account of any political or other extraneous consideration. For the present, we are not expressing any opinion on the question whether the selection of the allottees by the DSBs in this category of alleged tainted allotments was a result of the political or other extraneous consideration or the selection was on merits alone.

As already mentioned, these aspects require an independent probe. · The alleged tainted allotments are required to be scrutinized by an independent committee so as to determine the validity of impugned circular dated 9th August, 2002 as against such allotments. As already noticed, 417 names were exposed by the media out of which particulars of 413 have been provided. We deem it expedient to constitute a Committee to go into the question whether these allotments were made on merits or on some extraneous considerations. In our view, the Government should not have exercised the power in manner so as to enable it to escape the scrutiny of allotments exposed by the·. media. No arbitrary exercise of power should intervene to prevent the attainment of justice. Instead of passing the impugned order, in the context of the facts of the present case, the Government should have ordered an independent probe of alleged tainted allotments.

The impugned order had the twin effect of (I) scuttling the probe and (2) depriving a large number of others of their livelihood that had been ensured for them after their due selections pursuant to a welfare policy of the Government as contained in the guidelines·dated 9th October, 2000. The public in general has a right to know the drcumstanc~s under which their elected representatives got the outlets and/or dealershipsldistributorships. In view of the aforesaid:- I. We appoint a Committee comprising of Mr. Justice S. C. Agrawal, retired Judge of this Court and·Mr. Justice P. K. Bahri, a retired judge of Delhi High Court, to examine the aforesaid 413 cases. We request the Committee to submit the report to this Court within a period ofthree months. II. The Committee would device its own procedure for undertaking the examination of these cases. If considered necessary, the Committee· may appoint any person to assist it. Ill.

We direct the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India and the four oil companies to render full, complete and meaningful assistance and cooperation to the_Committee. The relevant records are directed to be produced before the Committee within five days. IV. We direct the Ministry to appoint a nodal officer not below the rank of a Joint Secretary for effective working of the Committee. V. The Central Government, State Government/Union Territories and all others are directed to render such assistance to the Committee as may be directed by it. VI. The oil companies are directed to provide as per Committee's directions, the requisite infrastructure, staff, trimsport and make necessary arrangements, whenever so directed, for travel, stay, payments and other facilities etc: VII. In respect ofany case ifthe Committee, on preliminary examination ·of the facts and records, forms an opinion that the allotment was made on merits and not as a result of.

political connections or patronage or other extraneous considerations, it would be open to the Committee not to proceed with probe in detail. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order dated 9th August, 2002 is hereby quashed except in respect of cases referred to the Committee. . The cases referred to the Committee would be considered on receipt of the report. However, the interim order dated 28th August, 2002 would continue to apply to these referred cases till further orders. The said order is further extended to cases where select panel has been published but letters of intent, have not been issued. Transferred Case Nos 80, 81 to 88, 90 and 9112002, all intervention A applications therein, I. A. Nos. 246-2556 in Transfer Petition (C) Nos. 417- 423/2002 and Contempt Petition (C) No. 556/2002 in Transferred Petition (C) No. 417-423/2002 are disposed of in terms of this decision.

· A copy of the judgment shall be sent to the Registrar Generals of all the High Courts so that the writ petitions, if any, pending in the High Courts B on similar questions can be disposed of in terms of this judgment. All matters except Transferred Case Nos. I00 to I09 are disposed of. List Transferred Case Nos. I00 to I09 of 2002 after receipt of the report. K. K. T. Petition disposed of.