{"id":177981,"date":"2001-10-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-10-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-purushotham-rao-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-october-2001"},"modified":"2016-03-15T22:31:27","modified_gmt":"2016-03-15T17:01:27","slug":"v-purushotham-rao-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-october-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-purushotham-rao-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-october-2001","title":{"rendered":"V. Purushotham Rao vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 October, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
V. Purushotham Rao vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 October, 2001<\/div>\n
Author: Pattanaik<\/div>\n
Bench: G.B. Pattanaik, Ruma Pal<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 3100  of  2000\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nV. PURUSHOTHAM RAO\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t19\/10\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nG.B. Pattanaik & Ruma Pal\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
With
\nCivil Appeal Nos. 3104-3105, 3089, 3090, 3117, 3097, 3102,
\n3086, 3106, 3085, 3094, 3099, 3103, 3092 & 3101\t of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
PATTANAIK, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn this batch of appeals the judgment of Delhi High
\nCourt, canceling the allotment made by the concerned
\nminister from out of his so- called discretionary quota on
\npetroleum dealership  as well as LPG dealership is under
\nchallenge.    Prior to 1995, the Minister of Petroleum in
\nexercise of his discretion  had been allotting retail outlets for
\npetroleum products, LPG dealership and SKO dealership,
\nwithout having any prescribed norms.  A Public Interest
\nLitigation had been filed in this Court by Centre for Public
\nInterest Litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution,
\npraying that guidelines to regulate the exercise of discretion
\nin the matter of such allotment, which results in exercise of
\nthe discretion arbitrarily be fixed.  It may be stated that
\ninitially a prayer had also been made in that application to
\ncancel the dealership in favour of respondent\tNo. 4,\t but
\nthat prayer stood deleted and an amended petition was filed
\nas the said respondent did not accept the dealership in
\nquestion.  This Court after hearing the counsel for the
\npetitioner, and the learned Attorney General, issued a set of
\nguidelines for discretionary allotment of petroleum products
\nagencies to ensure that the exercise of discretion in making
\nsuch allotments are in conformity with the rule of law and by
\nexcluding the likelihood of arbitrariness and minimising the
\narea of discretion.  The said decision of this Court has  since
\nbeen reported in the case of Centre for Public Interest
\nLitigation vs. Union of India and Ors.,<\/a> 1995 Supp.(3)
\nS.C.C. 382.\tIn para (4) of the aforesaid Judgment, the
\nCourt had directed as under:\n<\/p>\n
\tWe hereby direct that the above-quoted
\nnorms\/guidelines etc. shall be followed by the
\nCentral Government in making all such
\ndiscretionary allotments of retail outlets for
\npetroleum products, LPG Dealership and SKO
\nDealership, hereafter.\n<\/p>\n
The Common Cause had filed a petition under Article 32 on
\nthe basis of a news item which appeared in a national
\nnewspaper that the Minister of Petroleum was personally
\ninterested in making allotment of petrol pumps in favour of
\n15 persons, who\t were either the relations of his personal
\nstaff or sons of the Ministers, or sons\/relations of the
\nChairman and Members of the Oil Selection Boards,  praying
\nfor cancellation of allotments made inter alia on the ground
\nthat the allotments had been made by the concerned minister,
\nmala fide and the decision is arbitrary and motivated by
\nextraneous considerations.  The Court ultimately cancelled
\nthe allotments made in favour of the 15 persons mentioned in
\nthe petition, on a conclusion that the allotments are arbitrary,
\ndiscriminatory, mala fide and wholly illegal.  The Court also
\nissued certain other directions in relation to the allottees and
\ncalled upon the concerned minister to show cause as to why a
\ndirection be not issued to the appropriate police authority to
\nregister a case and initiate prosecution against him for
\ncriminal breach of trust or any other offence under law and in
\naddition, why he should not be liable to pay damages for his
\nmala fide action in allotting petrol pumps to 15 persons
\nmentioned therein.  This judgment of the Court is reported in
\n1996(6) SCC 530.      While the Common Cause case was
\npending in this Court, Civil Writ Petition Nos. 4003 and 4430
\nof 1995 had been filed in Delhi High Court by the Centre for
\nPublic Interest Litigation,   as public interest litigation, which
\nwere pending in Delhi High Court.  In those two petitions,
\nallotment of petrol pumps\/gas agencies to various persons
\nduring the period 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96
\nhad been challenged.  A Transfer Petition had been filed in
\nthis Court, which was registered as Transfer Petition No.
\n127\/96 and this Court had issued notice in the transfer
\npetition and stayed further proceedings before the High
\nCourt.\tIn an affidavit filed by the Ministry of Petroleum in
\nthe aforesaid transfer petition, the then Joint Secretary had
\nstated that in 1995-96 under the discretionary power of the
\nGovernment, allotment had been made to 99 persons and
\nfurther orders had already been made in favour of 61 more
\npersons, allotting petrol pumps\/gas agencies.\t One Mr.
\nSrinivasan, Advocate had filed an affidavit giving a long list
\nof persons who are related to the then Prime
\nMinister\/Ministers and other V.I.Ps and who had been
\nallotted petrol pumps and gas agencies.\t On behalf of
\npetroleum ministry, an affidavit had been filed, stating that
\ndue inquiry had been made through the oil companies and
\nafter due inquiry, the concerned minister had made the
\nallotment.  This Court ultimately held that since the two writ
\npetitions are pending before the High Court, wherein the
\nallotment made to all these persons have been challenged, it
\nwould not  be necessary for this Court to get the writ
\npetitions transferred and decide the matter.  The Court,
\ntherefore, vacated the stay order granted and directed the
\nRegistry of the Court to send all affidavits filed by the parties
\nin the transfer petition along with the annexures to the High
\nCourt.\tThe Court observed:\n<\/p>\n
We have no doubt that the High Court shall
\nexamine the issues involved in the writ petitions
\nand shall also go into the validity of the allotment
\nof petrol pumps\/gas agencies to various persons,
\nafter hearing them, in accordance with law.  We
\nrequest the High Court to expedite the hearing of
\nthe petitions.\n<\/p>\n
Pursuant to the directions contained in the judgment of this
\nCourt in Common Cause vs. Union of India,<\/a> 1996(6) SCC
\n530,  show cause notice having been issued to the then
\nMinister Captain Satish Sharma,\t  said Shri Sharma had filed
\nan affidavit in reply to the show cause notice.\t The Court
\nultimately perused the show cause notice filed and after
\nhearing the counsel appearing for the Minster, directed the
\nCBI to hold  an investigation, after registering a case against
\nthe concerned minister in respect of the allegations dealt with
\nand findings made by the Court earlier in the Common Cause
\ncase. On the question of liability of the minister to pay
\nexemplary or compensatory damages, the Court considered
\nthe matter and came to the conclusion  that Captain Satish
\nSharma, the then minister would be liable to pay exemplary
\ndamages and quantified the same at Rs. 50 lacs.\t This
\nJudgment of the Court has been reported in 1996(6) S.C.C.\n<\/p>\n
593.<\/p>\n
\tPursuant to the directions of this Court in Common
\nCause case, 1996(6) S.C.C. 530, the Delhi High Court took
\nup the writ petitions which had been filed as Public Interest
\nLitigation by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation.  On
\nexamination of the relevant files dealing with the allotment
\nof retail outlets of petrol, LPG distributorship and SKO\/LDO
\ndealership under the discretionary quota made by the
\nminister concerned, it was revealed that between January
\n1993 till 1996, 179 retail outlets (petrol pumps), 155 LPG
\ndistributorships and 45 SKO\/DLO dealerships had been
\nallotted by the concerned minister under the discretionary
\nquota.\tIn its order dated 29th of August, 1997, the Division
\nBench of  Delhi High Court came to the conclusion that the
\nexamination of files clearly shows that these are not the cases
\nof aberrations here or there but are cases which show a
\npattern of favouritism.\t From the judgment of Delhi High
\nCourt in C.W. 4003\/95 dated 29.8.1997, it transpires that
\neven before the Supreme Court stayed the  proceedings by
\norder dated 6th December, 1995 , the High Court had called
\nupon the respondents by order dated 2nd November, 1995 to
\nproduce the list of allotments made under the discretionary
\nquota of the petroleum minister for allotment of petrol retail
\noutlets, LPG distributorship and Kerosene distributorship
\nfrom the date of the tenure of the minister which was 18th of
\nJanuary, 1993.\t Before the  Delhi High Court, it had been
\ncontended by the allottees as well as by the Government that
\nthe judgment dated 31st March, 1995 of the Supreme Court
\nlaying down the guidelines, since reported in 1995 Supp.(3)
\nS.C.C. 382 would indicate that the Supreme Court had
\nimplidely regularised the allotments made prior to 31st
\nMarch, 1995 and consequently the validity of the said
\nallotments need not be gone into. The High Court however
\nwas not persuaded to agree with the submissions and in our
\nview rightly,  particularly, when in the Common Cause case
\n[1996(6) SCC 530] this Court has positively directed the
\nHigh Court to examine the issues involved and dispose of the
\ntwo pending writ petitions in accordance with law. Since the
\nallottees were required to be noticed before any decision is
\ntaken, the High Court by its order dated 11th December,
\n1996, constituted a Committee of three advocates and
\ndirected them to examine all the files and submit a report in a
\nProforma which had been prepared by the Court itself, after
\ndiscussion with the counsel appearing for the parties.\tThe
\nsaid Committee submitted its report,  on the basis of which
\nthe Court issued notices to various persons by its order dated
\n27th of February, 1997 and 20th of March, 1997 and the Court
\nwas to deal with the cases of about 400 allottees.  Pursuant to
\nthe notices issued, the allottees filed their respective show
\ncauses and then the Court heard the respective counsel for
\nthe allottees as well as examined the report of the Committee
\nand scrutinized the same by perusing the original file and
\nfinally disposed of the cases of about 100 allottees by its
\njudgment dated 29th of August, 1997.  The Court on
\nexamination of the materials before it and on perusal of the
\noriginal files, appears to have taken the view in several cases
\nthat  the discretion had been exercised on sufficient materials
\nand  after inquiry and held those allotments to have been
\nproper exercise of the discretion and  accordingly discharged
\nthe notices of cancellation.  But in those cases, where the
\nCourt found either there were no materials before the
\nconcerned minister in support of the applications filed to
\njustify the exercise of power for allotment under the
\ndiscretionary quota or such allotments had been made on
\naccount of political patronage or some other extraneous
\nconsiderations, the Court cancelled  the allotment made with
\ncertain directions therein.  It would be appropriate at this
\nstage to notice the observations of the High Court:\n<\/p>\n
It is unfortunate that perusal of the files show that
\na large number of persons to whom allotments
\nwere made under the discretionary quota belong to
\nan affluent class of society and not to the class
\nwhich may deserve compassion, resulting in
\nexercise of discretion in their favour.\t Whether this
\nlarge number of persons got allotment on account
\nof their affluence or on account of their close
\nproximity with the powers that be, it may be
\ndifficult to say definitely, one way or the other but
\nthat makes no difference since both affluence
\nand\/or proximity, are irrelevant and extraneous
\nconsiderations for exercise of discretion.\n<\/p>\n
The Court also came to the further conclusion that there had
\nbeen no verification of the statements made in the
\napplications by the allottees and hardly any application
\ncontains details of annual income or bio-data  and hardly any
\nperson had filed any affidavit in support of his claim, seeking
\ngrant of discretionary allotment and in several cases the
\napplications even did not bear any data and a number of
\nallottees belonged  to one Parliamentary Constituency and
\nwere active members and supporters of the party in power at
\nthe relevant time.  The Court having cancelled the allotments
\nmade in favour of the appellants, who are before us, the
\npresent appeals have been filed by grant of special leave.
\nAfter the disposal of first batch of cases by the High Court by
\nits judgment dated 29.8.1997, the High Court issued notices
\nto some other allottees and disposed of the second batch of
\ncases by its order dated 11.10.99 and both these orders of
\nDelhi High Court are under challenge, so far as it relates to
\nthe cancellation of allotments made under the discretionary
\nquota.\n<\/p>\n
\tCaptain Satish Sharma, who was the concerned
\nminister and against whom the Court had directed
\nregistration of a criminal case by the C.B.I., and also levied
\npenalty of Rs. 50 lacs, filed a review petition against the
\naforesaid two directions of the Court, which was entertained
\nand  that review petition was allowed by a three Judge Bench
\nof this Court, since reported in 1999(6) S.C.C. 667.  In the
\naforesaid case, this Court came to the conclusion that the
\nfactors relevant to the award of exemplary damages had not
\nbeen taken by this Court and consequently the levy of
\npenalty of Rs.50 lacs was not in accordance with law.  The
\nCourt also held\t that no case could be said to have been made
\nout against the concerned minister for directing  registering a
\ncase under Section 409 and such a direction could not have
\nbeen given  under Article 32 or under Article 142 and further,
\nsuch a direction would be contrary to the concept of right to
\nlife under Article 21.\tThe Court, therefore, set aside the two
\ndirections earlier made in relation to registering a criminal
\ncase and levy of penalty against the minister.\tCertain
\nobservations had been made in the  aforesaid three Judge
\nBench Judgment, which form the sheet anchor of one of the
\ncontentions of the appellants in the present batch of appeals
\nand we will refer to those observations and deal with the
\nsame at appropriate stage.  The aforesaid judgment of the
\nCourt has since been reported in 1999(6) SCC 667.
\nBetween 1997 and 1999, against the order of cancellation of
\nallotments made under discretionary quota,  about 79 special
\nleave petitions had been filed in this Court, which had been
\ndismissed or dismissed as withdrawn.  Notwithstanding the
\ndismissal of the aforesaid special leave petitions, after the
\nthree Judge Bench Judgment of this Court dated 3rd August,
\n1999 since reported in 1999 (6) S.C.C. 667, special leave
\npetitions having been filed, this batch of cases were listed
\nbefore the Bench presided over by the very learned Judge,
\nwho was presiding over the Bench which reviewed the earlier
\njudgment and absolved the concerned minister from the
\ndirection of levy of penalty as well as from the criminal
\nprosecution.  The Bench, therefore, having granted leave, the
\npresent appeals were placed for hearing.  At this stage, it
\nwould be appropriate for us to notice that the review petitions
\nfiled by Captain Satish Sharma, the concerned Minister was
\nin relation to the order dated 4.11.96 in the case of Common
\nCause vs. Union of India,<\/a> 1996(6) S.C.C. 593 and was not
\nin relation to the judgment dated 25.9.96 in the case of
\nCommon Cause vs. Union of India<\/a> reported in 1996(6)
\nS.C.C. 530.  The three Judge Bench however committed an
\nerror in paragraph (7) by noticing that the review petition
\nrelates to both the judgments viz. the Judgment dated 25.9.96
\nand 4.11.1996.\t   Mr. P.P. Rao, the learned counsel,
\nappearing in four of these appeals viz. Civil Appeal Nos.
\n3085, 3094, 3099 and 3092, seriously contended that the
\njudgment of this Court in the Centre for Public Interest
\nLitigation vs. Union of India,<\/a> 1995 Supp.(3) S.C.C. 382
\nin no uncertain terms, stipulates that the norms and
\nguidelines should be followed by the Central Government in
\nmaking discretionary allotment of retail outlets of petroleum
\nproducts, LPG distributorship and SKO dealership,
\nsubsequent to the said judgment which necessarily and
\nimpliedly indicates that the Court has approved the earlier
\nlapses in the matter of such allotment\tunder discretionary
\nquota and, therefore, it was not open to the High Court to re-
\nexamine all the cases and decide the legality of the allotments
\nmade under the discretionary quota.  He further contended
\nthat in view of the observations of this Court\tin the three
\nJudge Bench Judgment [1999(6) S.C.C. 667],   in paragraph
\n115 of the said judgment, the plea  of constructive res-
\njudicata should have been applied by the High Court and the
\nHigh Court committed error in rejecting the said contention.
\nAccording to Mr. Rao, on a plain reading of the judgment of
\nthis Court in Centre for Public Interest Litigation case [1995
\nSupp.(3) S.C.C. 382], the conclusion is irresistible that the
\nCourt in that case had given its stamp of judicial approval to
\nthe discretionary allotments had  already been made by that
\ndate and it is for that reason, the Court had indicated that the
\nguidelines therein would be followed hereafter.\t That being
\nthe position, not only that the principle  of  constructive res-
\njudicata would apply, but also it was not open for the High
\nCourt to re-open and examine the legality of the discretionary
\nallotments made prior to 1995.\tAccording to Mr. Rao, during
\nthe period when the allotments had been made in favour of
\nhis clients,  which is prior to the guidelines indicated by this
\nCourt in the Centre for Public Interest Litigation case, under
\nthe pre-existing practice and norms, the concerned minister
\nhaving exercised the discretion, the High Court committed
\nserious error in interfering with those discretionary orders of
\nallotment. Mr. Rao further urged that the impugned judgment
\nwould indicate that there has been no due consideration of
\nthe show-cause filed by the allottees and the materials
\nreferred to in the show-cause have not been considered by the
\nHigh Court and, therefore, it would be a fit case where matter
\nshould be remitted back to the High Court for re-
\nconsideration.\tAccording to Mr. Rao , the discretion having
\nbeen exercised in favour of his clients, who happened  to be
\npolitical sufferers and a  political sufferer having been
\nrecognised as a class\/category by themselves in the case of
\nD.N. Chanchala vs. State of Mysore and Ors.<\/a> etc., 1971
\nSupp.S.C.R. 608 at 629,\t the High Court committed serious
\nerror of law in interfering with the allotments made in favour
\nof his clients and as such the impugned orders cannot be
\nsustained.    Mr. Rao also urged that allotments having been
\nmade in individual cases of extreme hardship by the minister
\nconcerned and that being one of the norms which this Court
\nformulated in its guidelines in the case of Centre for Public
\nInterest Litigation and the appellants having invested huge
\nmoney and this being the only source of livelihood since
\n1993, the same ought not to have been cancelled, particularly
\nwhen no public interest will be served by such cancellation.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. P.S. Narasimha, the learned\t counsel, appearing for
\nthe appellant in Civil Appeal No. 3100\/2000, while
\nsupporting the arguments of Mr. Rao, further urged that all
\nthe necessary information was available with the High Court
\nbut the Court never considered those materials nor did the
\nCourt inquire into the correctness of those materials, as it
\nwould be apparent from the affidavit of the appellant, filed
\npursuant to the notice of show-cause and also the impugned
\norder of the High Court dealing with the appellants case.
\nThis being the position, Mr. Narsimhan urged that the order
\nof cancellation should be set aside and the matter should be
\nremitted back to the High Court for re-consideration.\n<\/p>\n
Appearing for the appellants in Civil Appeal Nos.
\n3104-3105 of 2000,  Mr. Narsimha, the learned counsel
\nurged that in these two cases, the concerned authority having
\nexercised the discretion in favour of a young educated
\nunemployed youth belonging to a back-ward community
\nand his family being under financial constraint, the
\nconclusion of the High Court that it was a case of arbitrary
\nallotment, is unsustainable in law.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. V.A. Mohta, the learned senior counsel appearing
\nfor the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 3089\/2000, urged that
\nthe allotment in favour of his client had been made under
\ndiscretionary quota as the family of the applicant had been
\nput to severe financial hardship on account of natural
\ncalamity on one hand and the Naxailite activities on the other
\nhand.  According to the learned counsel, this must be held to
\nbe a germane consideration which weighed with the
\nconcerned authority for exercise of his discretionary power
\nand, therefore, the High Court ought not to have cancelled
\nthe allotment made in favour of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Dushyant A. Dave, the learned senior counsel
\nappearing for the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 3090 of 2000
\nurged that the only ground on which the High Court has set
\naside the allotment made in favour of the appellant is that
\nthere had been no verification whatsoever regarding other
\nmembers of his family and their sources of income before
\nexercising discretion, and therefore, since the minister
\napproved the allotment without any verification, the
\nallotment is liable to be cancelled.  According to   Mr. Dave,
\nthe fact that the order of allotment itself indicated that the
\nI.O.C.Ltd. would conduct requisite verification before
\nissuance of Letter of Intent, it cannot be said that the order in
\nquestion was without any inquiry.  Mr. Dave urged that it is
\nnobodys case that the I.O.C., on an inquiry came to the
\nconclusion that the grant of distributorship in favour of the
\nappellant on compassionate grounds was unjustified.  That
\napart, the appellant himself had filed an affidavit before the
\nHigh Court, indicating his family conditions and the fact that
\nhe had no resources and he had gathered the resources from
\nfriends, but the High Court unfortunately over-looked these
\nmaterials and directed cancellation of the allotment made in
\nfavour of the appellant.  The learned counsel also urged that
\nthe order of the High Court would indicate that in case of
\nseveral other noticees, the High Court discharged the notice
\nof cancellation without ascribing any reason and therefore,
\nthere was no reason why the High Court should have
\ncancelled the allotment made in favour of the appellant.  The
\nlearned counsel further urged that even if the High Court
\nfound that there had been no verification, then it would have
\nbeen appropriate for the High Court to direct for a fresh
\nverification, rather than canceling the distributorship and the
\napproach of the High Court is wholly uncalled for.
\nAccording to the learned counsel, the appellants case being
\ncovered under the existing discretionary scheme, as was
\nprevalent, and further even under the guidelines issued by
\nthis Court in the judgment reported in 1995 Supp.(3) S.C.C.
\n382, individual cases of extreme hardship which in the
\nopinion of the Government are extremely compassionate and
\ndeserve sympathetic consideration being one of the criteria,
\nthere was absolutely no rhyme or reason on the part of the
\nHigh Court to set aside the discretionary allotment made in
\nfavour of the appellant.  He also reiterated the arguments
\nadvanced on behalf of Mr. Rao that the judgment of this
\nCourt  in 1995 Supp.(3) S.C.C. 382 must be so  construed,
\nthat allotments made under the discretionary quota prior to
\nthe date of the said judgment were not intended to be
\ninterfered with and as such, the High Court had no
\njurisdiction to examine the allotment made in favour of the
\nappellant, which was in the year 1993.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, the learned  counsel, appearing
\nfor the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 3117 of 2000,
\ncontended in addition to what had been urged by Mr. P.P.
\nRao that the impugned judgment of the High Court  is earlier
\nto the three Judge Bench Judgment of this Court in 1999(6)
\nS.C.C. 667  and the observations made in the three Judge
\nBench Judgment more particularly, in paragraph 115 thereof,
\nunequivocally supports the contention of the appellant that
\nthe Court approved all allotments made prior to the Judgment
\nin 1995 Supp.(3) S.C.C. 382 and therefore, the matter
\nshould be remitted back to the High Court for re-
\nconsideration in the light of the aforesaid three Judge Bench
\ndecision of this Court.\t  Mr. Jain also appearing for the
\nappellant in Civil Appeal No. 3114 of 2000 reiterated his
\nsubmissions made in the earlier case and contended that there
\nhas been gross injustice by the High Court in canceling the
\nallotment made and the equitable considerations require that
\nthis Court should interfere with the order of cancellation and
\nin the alternative, the matter should be remitted back to the
\nHigh Court  for reconsideration after due inquiry.\n<\/p>\n
In the written submission given by Mr. Bhachawat,
\nlearned senior counsel, in this case it was urged that prior to
\n31st March, 1995 there being no fixed guidelines for
\nallotment under discretionary quota, the High Court was not
\njustified in canceling the allotment which are not tainted by
\nany favoritism\tor nepotism merely because there is no proof
\nto support the allotment on compassionate ground, or that the
\napplication is undated, or there is no receipt entry on the
\napplication or even that there is no bio-data of the applicant.
\nAccording to Mr. Bhachawat even judicial notice can be
\ntaken of the fact that Ministers hold open Darbar in which
\nthey meet people, hear their grievances and also solve their
\nproblems on the spot, therefore, the possibility of
\napplications for allotment from discretionary quota having
\nbeen received during such Darbars cannot be denied.  Mr.
\nBhachawat also urged in his written submission that the
\nconcerned Minister, who is the author of the alleged wrong
\nallotment having been given a clean chit by the three Judge
\nBench of this Court, since reported in 1999 (6) SCC 667
\nand the main culprit thus being exonerated, it would not be
\nfair deal to punish the allottees, particularly when they have
\nmade investments and are earning their livelihood by
\noperating the allotments made in their favour.\tHe also
\nreiterated on the question of applicability of the principle res
\njudicata by stating that if the parties were the same and the
\nrelief sought for is identical then Explanation 6 to Section 11
\nshould apply.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. M.C. Bhandari, the learned senior counsel,
\nappearing for the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 3101 of
\n2000, seriously contended that the appellant does not belong
\nto any of the three categories of persons mentioned in the
\njudgment of this Court in 1996(6) S.C.C. 530 inasmuch as
\nthe High Court never found that the allotment in favour of
\nthe appellant had been made as he happened to be relation of
\nany personal staff of the minister or that the allotment had
\nbeen made on extraneous considerations nor the appellant
\ncan be said to be belonging to the category of sons of
\nministers or related to any member of the Oil Selection
\nBoard.\tThat being so and no mala fide, favouritism or
\nnepotism having been established, the allotment could not
\nhave been nullified by the High Court.\tAccording to Mr.
\nBhandari, the father of the appellant, Karibasavaraj,  being a
\nwell known talented stage artist in the State of Karnataka,
\nwho through his performance, had been able to convey the
\nmessages of freedom fighters and religious tolerance, having
\nfaced with acute financial stringency and said Karibasavaraj
\nhaving died, the responsibility to maintain a large family fell
\non the appellant, who though a graduate, had no job or
\nemployment.  It is on this consideration, the then Chief
\nMinister of Karnataka and the then Vice President of India
\nhad recommended the case of the appellant for being
\nfavourably considered for getting allotment under
\ndiscretionary quota and ultimately the Minister, Petroleum
\nhad made the grant in favour of the appellant.\tThe said
\nallotment is neither arbitrary nor motivated nor vitiated by
\nmala fides and as such the High Court was wholly in error in
\ncanceling the  allotment without proper examination of the
\naforesaid materials.  According to Mr. Bhandari, the finding
\nof the High Court that the minister has exercised his
\ndiscretion without any verification, is on the face of it
\nerroneous inasmuch as the order of allotment itself specified
\nthat the Letter of Intent could be issued only after requisite
\nverification.  In fact such verification can be effectively done
\nonly by the Oil Company at site and not by the Minister,
\nsitting in Delhi and to hold that the minister must verify the
\ncontents of the application, would be unreasonable and
\nimpracticable. Mr. Bhandari further urged that the so-called
\nquestionnaire which was formulated was behind the back of
\nthe appellant and the records indicating that the appellant is
\nrelated\/connected to Mr. Veerapa Moily, the then Chief
\nMinister of Karnataka is untrue.  Mere recommendation by
\nthe Chief Minister would not constitute any relationship and
\nthe conclusion therefore,  is without any materials.
\nAccording to the learned counsel, the procedure adopted by
\nthe High Court, so far as the appellant is concerned,
\ntantamounts to denial of a fair hearing and justice to the
\nappellant inasmuch as even before serving the notice on the
\nappellant on 15.4.1999, the High Court itself heard the first
\nbatch of cases and delivered its judgment on 29.8.97,
\nanswering all the questions of\tlaw, including the question of
\nconstructive res judicata.  Mr. Bhandari urged that in a public
\ninterest litigation like the one, the High Court was duty
\nbound to issue notice under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC so that
\npersons likely to be affected, could have appeared before the
\nHigh Court and made their submissions before the High
\nCourt prior to its first order on 29.8.1997.  Since the Court
\nitself has come to a definite conclusion on several issues
\narising in the matter by its order dated 29.8.97, the issuance
\nof notice to the appellant was a mere formality to comply
\nwith the principles of natural justice and the ultimate disposal
\nof the appellants case by the High Court must be held to be
\na disposal by the learned Judges who had already made up
\ntheir mind and this resulted in patent injustice.  In support of
\nthis contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the
\ndecision of this Court in 1989(3) S.C.C. Page 202 at 208-
\n210 (para 13).\tMr. Bhandari also urged that even in the case
\nof a public interest litigation, the basic principle of law to
\navoid multiplicity of proceedings should be implemented.
\nNecessarily, therefore, when the Centre for Public Interest
\nLitigation filed a petition in this Court, which was disposed
\nof by the Judgment since reported in 1995 Supp.(3) SCC
\n382 and that application also related to the allotment of retail
\ndealership in petroleum, under discretionary quota and did
\nnot assail the allotments already made, then  a second
\npetition before the Delhi High Court was not entertainable.
\nHe also reiterated the argument that explanation 4 to Section
\n11 CPC should apply to the case in hand and in support of
\nthe same he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court
\nreported in  AIR 1986 SC 391 at Page 397, para 20.  The
\nlearned\t counsel with emphasis urged that it is no doubt true
\nthat discretion in public matters should be least but it cannot
\nbe totally denuded of,\tnor can any Court strike down the
\npower exercised by an authority having discretion even in
\ndeserving cases.  The exercise of discretion by an authority
\ndepends upon the independence and integrity of the
\nindividual exercising such discretion.\tAdjudged from any
\nstand point, the allotment made in favour of the appellant in
\nhis case would not be a case of allotment on the ground of
\nfavouritism, nepotism and\/or abuse of power and, therefore,
\nthe High Court committed serious error in canceling the
\nallotment made.\t According to Mr. Bhandari,  compassion or
\na case of extreme hardship has all along been recognised as a
\ngermane factor for exercise of a discretion.  Even this has
\nbeen recognised in the guidelines issued by this Court in
\n1995 Supp (3) S.C.C. 382.    The allotment made in favour
\nof the appellant being covered by the guidelines (6) and (7)
\nof the Judgment of this Court in 1995 Supp.(3) S.C.C. 382,
\nit must be held that the discretion has been exercised in a
\nfair, reasonable and legal manner and, therefore, the same
\nought not to have been interfered with by the High Court.
\nMr. Bhandari lastly urged that such a discretionary allotment
\nhaving existed for a long time, as has been noticed by the
\nthree Judge Bench decision of this Court in 1999(6) S.C.C.
\n667 and the appellant having been allowed to run the agency
\nfor about eight years and having invested about Rs. 30 lacs
\nand the entire family being dependent on the income derived
\nfrom the agency, this Court should set aside the order of
\ncancellation made by the Delhi High Court and follow the
\njudgment of this Court dated 28th of September, 2001 in
\nCivil Appeal No. 6840\/2001 and batch, relating to allotment
\nof land from the discretionary quota in the State of Haryana.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Jaideep Gupta, the learned counsel, appearing for
\nthe appellant in Civil Appeal No. 3103 of 2000 contended
\nthat in his case, an eminent Member of Parliament, highly
\nrespected in the political sphere Smt. Gita Mukherjee, since
\ndeceased,  had\therself filed an affidavit before the Delhi
\nHigh Court, explaining the circumstances that led her to
\nrecommend the case of the appellant and the High Court
\neven did not bother to notice the said affidavit filed by Late
\nSmt. Gita Mukherjee and came to the conclusion that the
\nMinister before exercising the discretion, did not himself
\nverify about the source of income of the applicant and his
\nfamily members.\t According to Mr. Gupta, if  a Member of
\nParliament recommends the case of a citizen belonging to
\nhis\/her constituency and if the Minister acts upon such
\nrecommendations, it cannot be said that the Minister did not
\nverify himself before exercising his discretion.  Mr. Gupta
\nalso urged that even before entering into the dealership
\nagreement, the appellant had been extensively interviewed
\nby the Chief Regional Manager and the Legal Officer of the
\ncompany regarding his income and on being fully satisfied
\nwith the same and the aforesaid state of affairs having been
\nmade by the appellant on oath, which was not denied by
\nanyone concerned, on the un-controverted statement of the
\nappellant, the High Court was not justified in canceling the
\nallotment made on the ground as already stated.\t Mr. Gupta
\nfurther urged that the agreement entered into between the
\nappellant and the Oil Company itself contains power to
\nterminate the dealership if it is found that the applicant had
\nmade any incorrect statement at the time of allotment of
\ndealership.  That being the position, it would be always open
\nfor the Oil company to annul the dealership if it is found that
\nthe appellant had furnished any incorrect information.\tIn the
\npremises, it would be more appropriate to direct the oil
\ncompany to investigate into the matter, rather than to cancel
\nthe allotment made.  According to Mr. Gupta, the principles
\nto be followed in a case of cancellation of a grant should be
\ndifferent from the principles for determining the legality of a
\ngrant and, therefore, the High Court was wholly unjustified
\nin canceling the allotment made on the sole ground that the
\nconcerned minister had not made any inquiry before
\nexercising his discretion.  The learned counsel also urged
\nthat the appellant has invested a huge amount of money and
\ncancellation of the dealership at this point would cause
\nuntold hardship.  To deprive of the appellant and his family
\nof earning his livelihood at this length of time would not be
\nin the interest of justice and, therefore, this Court should set
\naside the order of cancellation passed by the Delhi High
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Subba Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the
\nappellant in Civil Appeal No. 3097 of 2000 urged that the
\nappellant, a widow was a destitute, having no source of
\nincome and the allotment made in her favour cannot but be
\nheld to be an allotment on germane consideration and,
\ntherefore, the High Court was wholly in error in canceling
\nthe allotment solely on the ground that the minister accepted
\nthe statement made in the application as a gospel truth.
\nAccording to Mr. Subba Rao, it is nobodys contention nor
\nhas the High Court found as a fact that the statements made
\nin the application for allotment are untrue and in such a case
\nthe discretion exercised ought not to have been interfered
\nwith on an hypothesis that the\tMinister committed an error
\nin accepting the statement made in the application for
\nallotment.  In this case the source of livelihood from out of
\nthe agency is a source for the entire family.  According to
\nMr. Rao, this source ought not to be closed down, which
\nwould make the entire family  destitute.  Mr. Subba Rao in
\nsupport of his contention placed reliance on a judgment of
\nthis Court in the case of Ram and Shyam Company vs.
\nState of Haryana and Ors. 1985 Supp.(1) S.C.R.541,
\nwhereunder this court noticed that there exists a clear
\ndistinction between the use and disposal of  private property
\nand social property.  While the Court observed in the
\naforesaid case that disposal of public property partakes the
\ncharacter of a trust in that in its disposal their should be
\nnothing dubious,  but this is subject to one important
\nlimitation namely that the socialist property may be disposed
\nat a price lower than the market price or even for a token
\nprice to achieve some defined constitutionally recognised
\npublic purpose, one such being to achieve that goals set out
\nin Part IV of the Constitution.\t In this view of the matter,
\naccording to Mr. Subba Rao the discretion used by the
\nconcerned minister in favour of his client cannot be held to
\nbe illegal or invalid.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. P. N. Misra, the learned senior counsel appearing
\nfor the appellant in Civil Appeal Nos. 3102\/2000 and
\n3086\/2000, strenuously urged that in the first appeal, the
\napplicant had lost her husband in a road accident while she
\nwas of a young age of 32.  She had two small school going
\nchildren and to establish her in life for the maintenance of the
\nyoung children it is her father-in-law who had made the
\napplication to allot her a retail outlet.  The concerned
\nMinister had approved the case of allotment in favour of the
\napplicant.  In the other case, on an application being made,
\nan inquiry had been made from the ministry to furnish the
\nbio-data which the applicant had furnished and on being
\nsatisfied with the materials furnished, the allotment had been
\nmade in favour of the applicant.  According to Mr. Misra,
\nthese are two genuine cases and a case of pure compassion
\nand as such the order of allotment ought not to have been
\ninterfered with.  Be it be stated that the father-in-law, who
\nhad made the application for getting an allotment in favour
\nof the applicant was none else than a Member of Parliament.
\nAccording to Mr. Misra, the allotment letter clearly having
\nstipulated that the allotment would be subject to verification
\nto be made by the concerned oil company and the company
\nitself having made the necessary verification, the High Court
\nwas not justified in interfering with the allotment made.
\nAccording to Mr. Misra, the applicant was asked to furnish
\nthe bio-data, which the applicant did comply with and
\ntherefore, the conclusion that there were no material before
\nthe minister was incorrect.  According to Mr. Misra, it is no
\ndoubt  true that the father-in-law  of the applicant was an
\nM.P. since 1991 but the application was made only in 1994,
\nafter the unfortunate death of his son which is indicative of
\nthe fact that the father-in-law never misused his position.
\nMr. P. N. Misra also placed before us the counter affidavit
\nfiled on behalf of the Union Government in the Delhi High
\nCourt in some other allied matters and also the noting dated
\n5.5.93, which indicates as to how the application of the
\nallottee is sent to the company concerned for verification of
\nfacts therein like income, residence, social status etc., and
\ncontends that the conclusion of the High Court that there had
\nbeen no verification is unsustainable.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. O.P. Sharma, the learned senior counsel, appearing
\nfor the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 3106\/2000 reiterated
\nthe submissions made by all the counsel appearing before
\nhim and argued at  considerable length by placing all the
\ndecisions afresh and urged that the three Judge Bench
\nJudgment having over-ruled the earlier two Judge Bench
\ndecision, the High Court could not have set aside the
\nallotment made, relying upon the judgment of this Court in
\nthe two Judge Bench decision.  The learned counsel also
\nurged that the three Judge Bench Judgment has categorically
\ncome to a finding that allotment has been made in
\naccordance with the prescribed guidelines.  That being the
\nposition, the High Court was not competent to over-ride\t the
\naforesaid conclusion of the three Judge Bench Judgment of
\nthis Court and arrive at a conclusion contrary to the same.
\nMr. Sharma also urged that the plea of constructive res
\njudicata should apply to the case in hand inasmuch as the
\naforesaid plea is applied as a matter of public policy to avoid
\nmultiplicity of litigation and not to allow re-opening of a
\nmatter already adjudicated upon.  In this view of the matter,
\nthe High Court was not\tentitled to re-examine the matter
\nafter the judgment of this Court in 1995 Supp.(3) SCC 382.
\nIn support of this contention, reliance had been placed on the
\ndecision of this Court in AIR 1997 SC 1680.  Mr. Sharma
\nalso relied upon the recent judgment of this Court in Haryana
\nLand Allotment case and contended that the theory of
\nprospective over-ruling should apply to prospective
\ncancellation of the grant made and that would subserve larger
\npublic interest and in this view of the matter this Court
\nshould set aside the order of cancellation made by the High
\nCourt.\tRelying upon the observations made in the reviewed
\njudgment of three learned Judges of this Court, Mr. Sharma
\ncontended that this decision approves the fact that allotments
\nmade earlier to the guidelines issued by this Court in 1995
\nmust not be interfered with and the said observation being
\nbinding on this Bench,\tthis Bench should allow this appeal
\nor refer the matter to a three Judge Bench.  Mr. Sharma
\nurged that right to life engrafted in Article 21 of the
\nconstitution also equally applies to the case in hand and as
\nsuch  the entire family will be ruined if the dealership is
\ncancelled.  He lastly urged  that pursuant to the notice issued
\nto the appellant, the appellant having filed an affidavit before
\nthe High Court, giving all material particulars, the High
\nCourt could not have set aside the allotment made in favour
\nof the appellant without even consideration of those
\nmaterials.   The disposal made by the High Court on such
\nnon-consideration of such germane materials must be held to
\nbe vitiated and therefore, the matter should be remitted back
\nto the High Court.  So far as the ground on which the High
\nCourt set aside the allotment made viz. the minister had not
\nverified the particulars, Mr. Sharma urged that the minister is
\nnot required to make any check or verification and can make
\nthe allotment under the discretionary quota, relying upon the
\nstatements made by an applicant, since the so-called grant is
\nsubject to the verification to be made by the oil company.  It
\nis always open for the oil company on verification, not to
\ngrant the dealership notwithstanding the order of the minister
\ninasmuch as order itself stipulates that the grant should be
\nsubject to the verification by the oil company.\t According to
\nMr. Sharma, the touch-stone for\t exercise of discretionary
\npower being that it should not suffer from the virus  of
\nnepotism and favouritism and should be devoid of any
\npersonal interest and should not be for extraneous
\nconsiderations and none of these grounds having been found
\nby the High Court, the order of cancellation on the face of it
\nis wholly unsustainable.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Sanjeev K. Kapoor, the learned counsel appearing
\nfor the Centre for Public Interest Litigation repels the
\nsubmissions made by the counsel for the appellants.
\nAccording to the learned counsel, the contention that the
\njudgment of this Court in the Centre for Public Interest
\nLitigation[1995 Supp.(3) S.C.C 382] amounts to a tacit
\napproval of the Court to the allotments made, any  illegal
\nexercise of discretionary power is nothing but a misreading
\nof the judgment.   He further urged that in public interest
\nlitigation, when there is no adversarial adjudication, the
\nprinciples of constructive res judicata ought not to apply, as
\nwas held by this Court in the case of Rural Litigation and
\nEntitlement Kentra vs. State of U.P.<\/a> 1989 Supp.(1) S.C.C.\n<\/p>\n
504.  At any rate the earlier litigation filed at the behest of
\nthe Centre for Public Interest Litigation was only for laying
\ndown the guidelines for exercise of the discretionary power,
\nas is apparent from the amended petition, the amended
\npetition was considered and disposed of and as such there
\nhas been no adjudication by this Court with regard to the
\nlegality or illegality of the allotments made by the concerned
\nminister from the discretionary quota.\tThe learned counsel
\nalso vehemently submitted that in the Common Cause case,
\nwhere subsequent to the judgment in Centre for Public
\nInterest Litigation case, legality of allotments made in favour
\nof 15 allottees from the discretionary quota was the subject
\nmatter for adjudication, this Court in no uncertain terms,
\ncancelled the allotments made  and in the very same
\njudgment, directed the Delhi High Court where the writ
\npetitions were pending to dispose of the matter in accordance
\nwith law. In fact the High Court proceeded to dispose of the
\nmatter pursuant to the aforesaid judgment\/observations of
\nthis Court in the Common Cause case.  In this view of the
\nmatter, the contention that the High Court should have
\napplied the principle of constructive res judicata, is wholly
\nmisconceived.  So far as the observations made by the three
\nJudge Bench Judgment of this Court in the review petition
\narising out of Common Cause case judgment, Mr. Kapoor
\ncontends that the review petition merely related to the
\nsubsequent order, wherein this Court directed institution of a
\ncriminal case and levied exemplary damages to the tune of
\nRs.50 lacs on the concerned  minister Capt. Satish Sharma.
\nIn the aforesaid premise, any observations made by the said
\nthree Judge Bench in relation to the legality of the allotments
\nmade by the minister from discretionary quota, cannot be
\ntreated to be of any binding precedent.\t According to Mr.
\nKapoor, the High Court was examining the legality of the
\nexercise of discretion by the concerned minister on the
\nmaterials available to find out whether it was in fact an
\nexercise of discretion on germane materials or the discretion
\nhas been exercised arbitrarily and for extraneous
\nconsiderations in which event the order emanated out of such
\ndiscretion was required to be nullified.  The High Court has
\napplied its mind to each and individual case of allotment
\nunder the discretionary quota and wherever some materials
\nwere there, the High Court has discharged the notice of
\ncancellation and it is only when there existed no materials for
\nthe minister concerned for exercise of his discretion and the
\nminister passed the order of allotment without any inquiry
\ninto the assertions made in the application, the Court has set
\naside the same.\t According to Mr. Kapoor, the notoriety by
\nwhich such discretionary allotment by a Minister has
\nreached, it would be unwise to interfere with well reasoned
\norder of the High Court, particularly when the High Court
\nhad the opportunity of examining the file from the Ministry,
\nin relation to each and every case of allotment under the
\ndiscretionary quota.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. T.L.V. Iyer, the learned senior counsel, appearing
\nfor the Union of India, submitted that the Union Government
\nhas no role to play and it merely complied with the directions
\nof the Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn view of the rival submissions at the Bar, the
\nfollowing questions arise for our consideration:\n<\/p>\n
(a) Is the Judgment of this Court in the case of Centre for
\nPublic Interest Litigation [1995 Supp.(3) S.C.C. 382]
\nsusceptible of a construction that the Court indicated
\nthe guidelines for future guidance and\thad it given its
\nstamp of judicial approval to the discretionary
\nallotments already made by the date of the judgment?\n<\/p>\n
(b) Would  the principle of constructive res judicata as
\nprovided under Section 11 explanation 4 of the Code of
\nCivil Procedure or Order 2 Rule 2 CPC  apply to a
\npublic interest litigation and if so, in the case in hand,
\ncan it be said that the writ petitions filed by the Centre
\nfor Public Interest Litigation in Delhi High Court from
\nout of the judgment of which the present appeals have
\nbeen preferred, are barred by the aforesaid principles on
\nthe ground that in the petition filed under Article 32 by
\nthe said Centre, no prayer for cancellation of illegal
\nallotments had been made, though could have been
\nmade?\tand what is the impact of the observations
\nmade by the three Judge Bench in the review petition
\nfiled by Captain Satish Sharma, which stood disposed
\nof by the judgment reported in 1999(6) S.C.C. 667?\n<\/p>\n
(c) Does the expression over ruled in the three Judge
\nBench Judgment,\t refer to over-ruling the judgment in
\nthe Common Cause case wholly or does  it refer to only
\nthe subsequent order in the Common Cause case,
\ndirecting registration of the criminal case and its
\ninvestigation and levy of penalty\/exemplary damages
\nagainst Captain Sharma?\n<\/p>\n
(d) The judgment of the High Court being earlier to the
\nthree Judge Bench judgment of this Court in the review
\npetition filed by Captain Satish Sharma since reported
\nin 1999(6) SCC 530,   is there any necessity for
\nremitting these appeals to the High Court for
\nreconsideration, in the light of the subsequent three
\nJudge Bench judgment of this Court?\n<\/p>\n
(e) Are the appellants entitled to any equitable
\nconsiderations on the ground that they have spent a
\nsubstantial amount and have also operated the petrol
\noutlets\/gas agencies for about eight years? and<\/p>\n
(f) Can the impugned judgment of the High Court in any of
\nthese appeals be said to be vitiated on account of non-
\nconsideration of any germane materials?\n<\/p>\n
(g) Whether in a Public Interest Litigation, where large
\nnumber of persons are going to be affected, the Court is
\nbound to issue notice under Order I Rule 8 and does
\nnon-issuance of such notice vitiate the entire
\nproceedings?\n<\/p>\n
(h) Whether the verification supposed to have been made
\nby the Oil Company pursuant to the order of allotment
\nmade by the Minister, can be held to be the proper
\nverification for exercise of discretion by the Minister
\nhimself and in such event whether the order of
\ncancellation by the High Court is valid?\n<\/p>\n
(i) Whether the principle decided in the judgment of this
\nCourt in Civil Appeal No. 6840 of 2001, in relation to
\nsuch discretionary allotment of land in the State of
\nHaryana, can be made applicable to the case in hand, so
\nthat the judgment would be made applicable
\nprospectively and consequently,\t the orders of
\ncancellation will have to be set aside?\n<\/p>\n
So far as the first question is concerned, the entire
\nemphasis is  on the directions given by the Court in
\nparagraph (4) of the Judgment, which is quoted hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
\tWe hereby direct that the above-quoted
\nnorms\/guidelines etc. shall be followed by the
\nCentral Government in making all such
\ndiscretionary allotments of retail outlets for
\npetroleum products, LPG Dealership and SKO
\nDealership, hereafter.\n<\/p>\n
The appellants contention is that while the writ petition was
\nfiled in public interest, the exercise of discretion in allotment
\nof retail outlets for petroleum products, LPG Dealership and
\nSKO Dealership had been challenged and a prayer for laying
\ndown the guidelines to regulate the exercise of discretion
\nhad been made,\tthe Court only laid down the guidelines and
\nfurther observed that the norms and guidelines would be
\nfollowed hereafter  and necessarily, therefore, there has been
\na tacit approval to the earlier allotments made under the
\ndiscretionary quota inasmuch as the Court never cancelled
\nthe allotments made nor had issued any direction in that
\nrespect.  This contention in our considered opinion, cannot
\nbe sustained for two reasons.  Firstly, the amended petition
\nwhich the Centre for Public Interest Litigation has filed,
\nmerely prayed for laying down the guidelines to regulate
\nexercise of discretion in the matter of such allotments.
\nSecondly, which is rather more important is that this
\njudgment was delivered by the Court on 31st of March, 1995.
\nThe Common Cause had filed another petition under Article
\n32, alleging arbitrary exercise of discretion in favour of 15
\nallottees and that petition was entertained by this Court and
\ndisposed of by Judgment dated 25th September, 1996 and the
\nCourt cancelled all such allotments on a finding that the
\nMinister without keeping in view any guidelines,  allotted  in
\nexercise of his discretion in a cluster manner\tand the public
\nproperty have been doled out in wholly arbitrary  and
\ndiscriminatory manner. If the earlier Judgment is susceptible
\nof the construction, as contended by the appellants, then it
\nwould not have been possible in the Common Cause case to
\nexamine the legality of such allotments which had been
\nmade in favour of 15 persons. Instead of construing the
\njudgment in the Centre for Public Interest Litigation to the
\neffect that it accords a tacit approval of the allotments made
\nprior to the judgment in the Common Cause case, the Court
\nrelied upon the earlier judgment in 1995 Supp.(1) S.C.C.
\n382, and ultimately cancelled the orders of allotment, having
\nfound that the allotments were made arbitrarily and for
\nextraneous considerations.  In this view of the matter, it is
\ndifficult for us to sustain the contention of the learned
\ncounsel, appearing for the appellants.\tWe, therefore,\thold
\nthat the judgment of this Court in Centre for Public
\nInterest Litigation, 1995 Supp.(3) S.C.C. 382,\t cannot be
\nconstrued by any stretch of the\t imagination to be a tacit
\napproval of the discretionary allotments made prior to that
\njudgment.  We, therefore, do not find any substance in this
\nsubmission of the learned counsel for the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
\tComing to the second question, Explanation (IV) to
\nSection 11 of the Civil Procedure Code postulates that any
\nmatter which might and ought to have been made ground of
\ndefence or attack  in such former suit shall be deemed to
\nhave been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such
\nsuit.  Order II Rule (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure
\nprovides that every suit shall include the whole of the claim
\nwhich the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause
\nof action and if he omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally
\nrelinquishes, any portion of his claim, then he shall not
\nafterwards sue in respect of the portion, so omitted or
\nrelinquished.\tBy virtue of explanation to Section 141 of the
\nCode of Civil Procedure, since proceedings under Article
\n226 of the Constitution is excluded from the expression
\nproceedings,   therefore, the Civil Procedure Code is not
\nrequired to be followed in a proceeding\t under Article 226
\nunless the High Court itself has made the provisions of Civil
\nProcedure Code applicable to a proceeding under Article\n<\/p>\n
226.  Then again, the principles of Section 11 as well as
\nOrder II Rule 2, undoubtedly contemplate an adversarial
\nsystem of litigation, where the Court adjudicates the rights
\nof the parties and determines the issues arising in a given
\ncase.  The Public Interest Litigation or a petition filed for
\npublic interest cannot be held to be an adversarial system of
\nadjudication and the petitioner in such case, merely brings it
\nto the notice of the Court, as to how and in what manner the
\npublic interest is being jeopardised by arbitrary and
\ncapricious action of the authorities.  In the case of Rural
\nLitigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State of U.P.<\/a> 1989
\nSupp.(1) S.C.C. 504, which is commonly known as the
\nDoon Valley case, such a contention had been  raised, as is
\napparent from paragraph (14) of the judgment viz. the
\ndecision of the Court dated 12th March, 1985 was final in
\ncertain aspects, including the release of A category mines
\noutside the city limits of Mussoorie from the proceedings
\nand in view of such finality it was not open to this Court in
\nthe same proceedings at a later stage to direct differently in
\nregard to what had been decided earlier.  The Court repelled
\nthe same by holding that the writ petitions are not inter-
\nparties disputes and have been raised by way of public
\ninterest litigation and the controversy before the Court is as
\nto whether for social safety and for creating a hazardless
\nenvironment for the people to live in, mining in the area
\nshould be permitted or stopped.\t The Court hastened to add:\n<\/p>\n
We may not be taken to have said that for public
\ninterest litigations, procedural laws do not apply.
\nAt the same time it has to be remembered that
\nevery technicality in the procedural law is not
\navailable as a defence when a matter of grave
\npublic importance is for consideration before the
\nCourt.\tEven if it is said that there was a final
\norder, in a dispute of this type it would be difficult
\nto entertain the plea of res judicata.\n<\/p>\n
Thus even in the self-same proceeding, the earlier order
\nthough final, was treated not to create a bar inasmuch as the
\ncontroversy  before the Court was of grave public interest.
\nThe learned counsel appearing for the appellants drew our
\nattention to the decision of this Court in the case of Forward
\nConstruction Co. and Ors. vs. Prabhat Mandal, AIR 1986
\nSC 391, whereunder the Court  did record a conclusion that
\nSection 11 of the Civil Procedure Code applied to Public
\nInterest Litigation.  In our considered opinion, therefore, the
\nprinciple of constructive res judicata cannot be made
\napplicable in each and every public interest litigation,
\nirrespective of the nature of litigation itself and its impact on
\nthe society and the larger public interest which is being
\nserved.\t There cannot be any dispute that in  competing rights
\nbetween the public interest and individual interest, the public
\ninterest would over-ride.   In the Centre for Public Interest
\nLitigation case, which had been filed in this Court, the prayer
\nthat had been made was to lay down the guidelines for the
\ndiscretion being exercised in the matter of allotment of  Gas
\nagencies, petroleum dealership and others.  It is no doubt true
\nthat the applicant therein could have made a prayer for
\nexamining the legality of the allotments already made but as
\nthe applicant states in the writ petition filed in Delhi High
\nCourt that he had no knowledge about the persons to whom
\nsuch allotments had been made and in fact the Delhi High
\nCourt itself on a petition being filed, called upon the
\nrespondents to submit the list of such allottees, whereafter
\nnotices could be issued to the allottees.  That apart, when this
\nCourt entertained another public interest litigation, filed by
\nthe Common Cause in respect of 15 discretionary allotments
\nmade in favour of 15 persons, the Court did entertain the
\nsame and instead of treating the earlier decision to be a bar
\nand applying the principle of constructive res judicata, the
\nCourt relied upon the same and cancelled the allotments
\nmade in favour of those 15 persons who had been arrayed as
\nparties to the said petition filed under Article 32.  That apart,
\nthe writ petitions in which the judgment of which are the
\nsubject matter of challenge in these appeals, had been filed in
\nDelhi High Court and which were pending when the
\nCommon Cause case was taken up by this Court.  This Court
\ninitially stayed the proceedings and issued notice in the
\nTransfer Petitions but ultimately, vacated the stay order and
\ninstead of bringing the writ petitions to this Court on transfer,
\ndirected the Registry of the Court to send the petitions along
\nwith the annexures to the High Court and required the High
\nCourt to examine the issues involved in the writ petitions and
\ngo into the validity of the allotments of petrol pumps\/Gas
\nagencies to various persons.  In view of the aforesaid positive
\ndirection in para 31 of the judgment of this Court in Common
\nCause case, 1996(6) S.C.C. 530, it is difficult for us to
\nsustain the plea of bar of constructive res judicata, as urged
\nby the counsel, appearing for the appellants.  In this
\nconnection, the counsel also brought to our notice,
\nobservation made in the review petition judgment in the
\nCommon Cause Case 1999(6) S.C.C. 667 in paragraph 115,
\nwhich is quoted herein below in extenso:\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is contended that since the allotments
\nmade by the petitioner till the filing of the writ
\npetition in this Court, in spite of a challenge
\nhaving been raised therein, were not set aside and
\nonly guidelines were settled for future exercise of
\ndiscretionary quota, tacit stamp of judicial
\napproval shall be deemed to have been placed on
\nthe allotments made by the petitioner and
\nconsequently those allotments could not have
\nbeen reopened on the principle of constructive res
\njudicata.  Normally, we would have accepted this
\nargument, but in this case we cannot go to that
\nextent.\n<\/p>\n
According to the learned counsel, the three Judge Bench
\naccepted the contention of the applicability of principle of
\nconstructive res judicata and, therefore, this Bench being a
\ntwo Judge Bench must be bound by the said observations or
\nin the alternative, may refer the matter to a larger Bench.  We
\nare not in a position to accept either of these submissions.  It
\nmay be stated at the outset that the three Judge Bench was
\nconcerned with the review petition that had been filed in
\nrelation to the order dated 4.11.96 since reported in 1996(6)
\nS.C.C. 593.   The learned Judges committed an error in the
\nbeginning in thinking that the review petition filed by Capt.
\nSatish Sharma was in relation to both the judgments viz.
\n1996(6) S.C.C. 530   as well as 1996(6) S.C.C. 593.  In the
\nreview petition, the Court was concerned with the correctness
\nof the directions contained in the order dated 4.11.96 to
\ninstitute criminal prosecution against the concerned Minister
\nand levy of penalty as exemplary damages to the tune of Rs.
\n50 lacs.  It is in that context the Court made the aforesaid
\nobservations not noticing the fact that in 1996(6) S.C.C.530,
\nthe Court had earlier directed the High Court to dispose of
\nthe two writ petitions pending in the High Court and decide
\nthe legality of the order of discretionary allotment made by
\nthe concerned minister.\t  It is indeed interesting to notice that
\nin paragraph 125 of the judgment of the three Judge Bench,
\nthe Court itself had indicated that the conduct of the
\nconcerned minister in making allotments of petrol outlets was
\natrocious and reflects a  wanton exercise of power by the
\nMinister.   But what the Court wanted to examine and
\nultimately held was that the said action fell  short of
\nmisfeasance in public office  which is a specific tort and the
\ningredients  of that tort were\tnot wholly met in the case, so
\nthat there was no occasion to award exemplary damages.\tIt
\nwould be indeed a travesty of justice to accept the submission
\nof the counsel for the appellants that the three Judge Bench
\nexpressed opinion that the principle of constructive res
\njudicata would apply to the case in hand, so as to debar the
\nHigh Court from entertaining the writ petitions and disposing
\nthem of on merits.  As we have already noted,  prior to the
\nthree Judge Bench Judgment of this Court , the self-same
\norder of the Delhi High Court had been assailed in as many
\nas 79 cases by\tapproaching this Court by way of  special
\nleave petitions and  all those petitions had been dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
  The extent to which corruption in the governing
\nstructure has corroded the very core of our democracy,\tthe
\nnotoriety which the discretionary allotment of petroleum
\ndealership and LPG gas agencies had acquired, the earlier
\npetition under Article 32  entertained by this Court at the
\nbehest of the Common Cause, the\t cancellation of 15  of
\nsuch allotments and finally, the express direction therein to
\nthe High Court to dispose of the pending writ petitions after
\nexamining the individual cases, it is difficult for us to accept
\nthe bar of principle of constructive res judicata on the ground
\nthat the earlier judgment in the case of Centre for Public
\nInterest Litigation has accorded any tacit approval or the
\nsubsequent so-called observation made in the three Judge
\nBench decision of this Court in the review petition.  We,
\ntherefore, unhesitatingly hold that the aforesaid contention is
\ndevoid of any substance.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe third contention was seriously argued by Mr.
\nSharma, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in
\nCivil Appeal No. 3106 of 2000.\tThe learned counsel very
\nmuch emphasised that Common Cause vs. Union of India<\/a>
\n1996(6) S.C.C. 530,  has been over-ruled and, therefore,
\nnothing survived for Delhi High Court to examine the
\nlegality of the allotments made under discretionary quota.
\nThis argument appears to have been made on the basis of the
\nHead Note at page 671 of the reported judgment with
\nreference to paragraph 123 of the judgment.  But when we
\nexamine paragraph 123 of the judgment, we do not find
\nanywhere that the three Judge Bench had in fact\t over-ruled
\nthe judgment in Common Cause case, 1996(6) S.C.C.530.
\nOn the other hand, in paragraph 125 it affirms the earlier
\nconclusion that the conduct of the Minister was wholly
\nunjustified.  Then again, the review petition itself, as already
\nstated had been filed by Capt. Satish Sharma, the then
\nMinister only in relation to the order and direction dated
\n4.11.96 since reported in 1996(6) S.C.C.593.   In this view of
\nthe matter, we find no\tsubstance in the aforesaid contention
\nraised by Mr. Sharma, appearing for the appellant in Civil
\nAppeal No. 3106 of 2000.  We have therefore no hesitation in
\nrejecting the same.\n<\/p>\n
\tSo far as the fourth question is concerned, it\tis no
\ndoubt true that the three Judge Bench decision of this Court,
\nreviewing the direction in the Common Cause Case, so far as
\norder dated 4.11.96 is concerned, is subsequent to the
\ndisposal of the writ petition by the Delhi High Court, but we
\ndo not\tfind any justification for requiring the Delhi High
\nCourt to re-consider the appeals in the light of the
\nobservations made by the three Judge Bench judgment of this
\nCourt inasmuch as  in the said judgment this Court was
\nmerely concerned with the directions to register  a criminal
\ncase and prosecute the concerned minister, if he is found to
\nhave committed any criminal offence and levy of exemplary
\ndamages to the tune of Rs. 50 lacs.  Consequently, any
\nobservation made in that regard will have no bearing on the
\nmerits of the individual allotments, which were the subject
\nmatter of consideration in the two writ petitions before the
\nDelhi High Court.  We, therefore, do not find any substance
\nin the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
\tSo far as the fifth question is concerned, it is no doubt
\ntrue that the appellants have invested considerable amount in
\nthe business and have operated for about eight years but even
\non equitable considerations, we do not\tfind any equity in
\nfavour of the appellants.   The conduct of the Minister in
\nmaking the discretionary allotments has been found to be
\natrocious, in the very three Judge Bench decision of this
\nCourt and in relation to similar allotments made by the said
\nminister in favour of 15 persons, who were respondents in the
\nCommon Cause case. This Court came to hold that the
\nallotments of the public property has been doled out in
\narbitrary and discriminatory manner and the appellants had
\nbeen held to be beneficiaries of such arbitrary orders of
\nallotments.  The question of granting the allottees relief on an
\nequitable consideration did not arise at all, for the same
\nreasons in a case like this, a sympathetic consideration on the
\nground of equity would be a case of misplaced sympathy and
\nwe refrain from granting any relief on any equitable
\nconsideration.\tIn our view, the appellants do not deserve any
\nequitable consideration.\n<\/p>\n
\tSo far as the sixth question is concerned, we have
\nexamined the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of
\neach individual appellant. We have also considered the
\nquestionnaire that had been evolved and also the replies  to
\nthe show-cause notices that had been filed by the allottees.
\nWe have also considered the original applications that had
\nbeen filed by these appellants and the orders of allotment
\nmade by the concerned minister, wherever they are available
\non record as well as the recommendations and circumstances
\nleading to the exercise of discretion.\tThe impugned
\njudgment also indicates\t that in each and every case, the High
\nCourt had considered the original file, dealing with the
\nallotments in question and it cancelled only  those allotments
\nwhere there was not an iota of material in support of the
\nclaim made by the applicant, whereas it sustained several
\nother cases of discretionary allotments made during that
\nperiod, wherever materials were available in the original file.
\nIt is difficult for us to come to a conclusion that the
\nconclusion of the High Court in the cases in hand can be said
\nto be vitiated on account of non-consideration of any
\ngermane materials.  Factually, we do not have any basis to
\ncome to the aforesaid finding.\tOn the other hand, we are
\nsatisfied that the High Court has applied its mind to each and
\nevery individual case of discretionary allotment and
\ncancelled only those, which it came to hold to have been
\narbitrarily granted without any inquiry and only on being
\npersuaded by certain recommendations of high dignitaries
\nand without verification of any materials.  We, therefore, see
\nno infirmity with the ultimate conclusion of the High Court,
\ncanceling the allotments in favour of the appellants, so as to
\nbe interfered with by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
So far as the seventh question is concerned, it is Mr.
\nBhandari, who argued with vehemence that non-issuance of
\nnotice under Order I Rule 8 CPC by the High Court before
\ndeciding the legal issues by its order dated 22.8.97, has
\nvitiated the entire proceedings and  consequently, the order of
\ncancellation must be set aside by this Court. According to
\nMr. Bhandari, in a matter like the present one, unless the
\nCourt directs issuance of notice by  publication in a
\nnewspaper, following the procedure under Order I Rule 8
\nCPC and all the affected persons get an opportunity to appear
\nand made their submissions, before the Court formulates the
\nlegal position and answers them, the subsequent notice to
\ndifferent persons like the appellants is nothing but a
\ncompliance of paper formality and such procedure adopted
\nhas grossly prejudiced the appellants.\tWe, however, are not
\npersuaded to accept this submission.  The provisions of Order
\nI Rule 8 C.P.C. get attracted when there are numerous
\npersons having the same interest, are sued or sue and the
\nCourt can permit such a suit to be defended by adopting the
\nprocedure under Order I Rule 8 CPC.  In the case in hand, the
\nwrit petition that had been filed was in fact a petition in
\nPublic Interest, where\tthe allegations were that the
\nconcerned authority had been involved in large-scale
\nallotments of retail outlets in petrol, gas and kerosene,
\narbitrarily and for extraneous considerations without having
\nany guidelines for such allotments and as such it
\ntantamounted   to  disposal of public  property in a manner
\nwhich is shocking to conscience.  By the time when the High
\nCourt went into those allegations in the two petitions filed,
\nthis Court had taken the view that such allotments had in fact
\nbeen made arbitrarily and contrary to the public interest and
\nthis Court directed the High Court to dispose of the pending
\nproceedings in accordance with law.  The High Court, on
\nreceipt of the names of the allottees during a specified period
\nfrom the Union Government, issued notice to each and every
\nsuch allottee, who had been allotted out of the discretionary
\nquota of the concerned Minister and granted opportunity to
\neach of such allottee to inspect the relevant file dealing with
\nthe allotment in his\/her favour and then heard the said
\nallottee before passing the final order, either discharging
\nnotice of cancellation or canceling the allotment made.\t In
\nthis view of the matter, we hardly find any justification in the
\nsubmission of Mr. Bhandari that the entire proceedings are
\nvitiated as notice under Order I Rule 8 CPC had not been
\ngiven.\tIf the allottee like the appellant whose allotment has
\nbeen cancelled by the impugned order, had the opportunity of
\nexamining the materials on the file of the Government,
\nwherein his case of allotment has been dealt with and had the
\nopportunity of filing his show-cause, pursuant to the notice of
\ncancellation that had been issued and the allotment in his
\ncase having been cancelled on the ground that the concerned
\nminister did not make any verification with regard to the
\nnecessary criteria indicated in the application for
\ndiscretionary allotment, we fail to understand how a
\ncontention could be raised that the whole procedure adopted
\nis vitiated for non-compliance of the procedure under Order I
\nRule 8 CPC.  The object of order 1 Rule 8 CPC is to give
\nnotice to persons likely to be affected by litigation, so that
\nthey may be heard.     If the Court would have directed
\nissuance of notice under Order I Rule 8 CPC without giving
\nindividual notice to the allottees to show-cause why the
\nallotment will not be cancelled, then  that perhaps would
\nhave been an infraction and violation of  the principle of
\nnatural justice.  But in this case,  each and every allottee had
\nbeen duly noticed, they have filed their replies to the notices,
\nthey have availed of the opportunity of examining the
\noriginal file, wherein the case of discretionary allotment had
\nbeen dealt with and it was only\t after hearing them that  the
\norders of cancellation had been passed.\t We have, therefore,
\nno hesitation in answering this question that there was no
\nrequirement of following the procedure under Order I Rule 8
\nnor can it be said that the entire exercise is vitiated.\n<\/p>\n
So far as the eighth question is concerned, it was
\nrepeatedly argued before us by several counsel that the
\nconcerned minister was not required to verify and since the
\norder of allotment stipulates that the Oil company would
\nverify before granting the agency in question that itself is a
\ngood verification and consequently, the High Court was in
\nerror in canceling the allotment on the ground that there had
\nbeen no proper verification.  It is no doubt true that the
\nMinister having exercised his discretion and allotting a
\nparticular agency in favour of the applicant, has required the
\nOil company to make necessary verification before entering
\ninto an agreement with the allottee,  but that verification
\nsupposed to have been done by the oil company has nothing
\nto do with the materials on which the subjective satisfaction
\nof the Minister was arrived at for exercise of his discretion in
\nfavour of  any individual for any justifiable reason.\tWhen a
\nState property as distinct from a private property is being
\ndealt with by a Minister then it is of paramount importance
\nthat such public property must be dealt with for public
\npurpose and in the  public interest.  The disposal of a public
\nproperty undoubtedly partakes the character of a trust and
\ntherefore, in the matter of such disposal, there should not be
\nany suspicion of a lack of principle.\tThe exercise of
\ndiscretion must not be arbitrary or capricious or for any
\nextraneous considerations.  It is in that context when the
\nCourt was examining each and every individual case of
\ndiscretionary allotment, the Court was trying to find out
\nwhether there existed  some materials, on the basis of which
\nthe Minister could be said to have arrived at his subjective
\nsatisfaction for exercise of  his discretion in favour of the
\napplicant.  It is the so-called satisfaction of the Minister for
\nexercise of his discretionary power and making the grant that
\nwas being examined and scrutinized by the Court and only
\nwhen the Court found that there had been absolutely no
\nmaterials or that Minister had made the grant without making
\nany inquiry or verification,  that the Court had interfered with
\nthe allotments in question, obviously on a conclusion that
\nsuch allotments had been arbitrarily  made.  The subsequent
\ninquiry supposed to have been conducted by the Oil company
\ncannot replace\tthe pre-conditions for exercise of discretion
\nby the Minister.  If the initial order of allotment by exercise
\nof discretion is vitiated on the ground of absence of any
\nmaterials or verification by the concerned authority  who has
\nexercised the discretion,  then the so-called subsequent
\ninquiry by the Oil company which operates in different fields
\ncannot make the so-called arbitrary order of the Minister a
\nlegal  or just order.  This being the position, we see no force
\nin the submission made by the counsel appearing for the
\nappellants on this score.  The same accordingly stands
\nrejected.\n<\/p>\n
The next question which arises for consideration is
\nwhether the judgment of this Court  in Civil Appeal No. 6840
\nof 2001 and principles evolved therein can be applied to the
\ncase in hand, so as to protect the allotments already made
\nunder the discretionary quota.\tThe aforesaid case no doubt
\nwas a case of allotment of land by the Chief Minister of a
\nState in the State of Haryana.\tThe High Court of Punjab and
\nHaryana by its order dated 20th January, 1988 disposed of the
\ncase of S.R. Dass vs. State of Haryana, 1988 Punjab Law
\nJournal page 123,\tunder which it formulated certain
\nprinciples on which the discretionary allotments could be
\nmade with certain conditions.  The so-called discretionary
\nallotments made by the Government and HUDA, pursuant to
\nthe earlier judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court were
\nsought to be assailed as  being contrary to certain stricter
\nprinciples, which were evolved in the case of Anil
\nSabharwal which stood disposed of on 5.12.97.  This Court
\nin the appeal in question held that the stricter scrutiny
\nrequired to be made as per the guidelines evolved in Anil
\nSabharwals case, must be made applicable to the period
\nsubsequent to the judgment viz. 5.12.97 and allotments made
\nbetween 1988 and 1997 in accordance with the principles and
\nguidelines indicated in S.R. Dass case, were protected\tby
\napplying the principle of prospective application, so far as the
\njudgment in Anil Sabharwals case.  We fail to understand
\nhow the aforesaid principle can apply to the case in hand
\nwhere the allotments made prior to the judgment of this
\nCourt in Centre for Public Interest Litigation, 1995(3)
\nSupp.(3) S.C.C. 382,  are the subject matter of scrutiny and
\nhad been made indiscriminately,\t as there had been no
\nguiding principle for making such allotments.  Consequently,
\nthe principles evolved in Civil Appeal No. 6840 of 2001, will
\nhave no application at all to the present appeals.  The said
\ncontention, therefore, must fail.\n<\/p>\n
In view of our conclusions on the nine issues,\tas
\nmentioned above, these appeals fail and are dismissed.\tThere
\nhowever will be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
While, we are dismissing the appeals, we are also aware
\nof the fact that these appellants are operating the allotments
\nmade in their favour since 1993-94 and even after the
\njudgment of the High Court, they are continuing by virtue of
\nan interim order of this Court.\t  In these circumstances, we
\ndirect that they shall be allowed to wind-up their respective
\nbusinesses  by 31st of December, 2001.\n<\/p>\n
……………………..J
\n\t  (G.B.\t PATTANAIK)<\/p>\n
……………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(RUMA PAL)<\/p>\n
October\t 19, 2001.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India V. Purushotham Rao vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 October, 2001 Author: Pattanaik Bench: G.B. Pattanaik, Ruma Pal CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3100 of 2000 PETITIONER: V. PURUSHOTHAM RAO Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19\/10\/2001 BENCH: G.B. Pattanaik & Ruma Pal JUDGMENT: With Civil […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-177981","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nV. Purushotham Rao vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 October, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-purushotham-rao-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-october-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"V. Purushotham Rao vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 October, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-purushotham-rao-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-october-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2001-10-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-15T17:01:27+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"66 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-purushotham-rao-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-october-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-purushotham-rao-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-october-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"V. Purushotham Rao vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 October, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-10-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-15T17:01:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-purushotham-rao-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-october-2001\"},\"wordCount\":13084,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-purushotham-rao-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-october-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-purushotham-rao-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-october-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-purushotham-rao-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-october-2001\",\"name\":\"V. Purushotham Rao vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 October, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-10-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-15T17:01:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-purushotham-rao-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-october-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-purushotham-rao-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-october-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-purushotham-rao-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-october-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"V. Purushotham Rao vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 October, 2001\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"V. Purushotham Rao vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 October, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-purushotham-rao-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-october-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"V. Purushotham Rao vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 October, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-purushotham-rao-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-october-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-10-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-15T17:01:27+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"66 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-purushotham-rao-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-october-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-purushotham-rao-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-october-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"V. Purushotham Rao vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 October, 2001","datePublished":"2001-10-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-15T17:01:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-purushotham-rao-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-october-2001"},"wordCount":13084,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-purushotham-rao-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-october-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-purushotham-rao-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-october-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-purushotham-rao-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-october-2001","name":"V. Purushotham Rao vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 October, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-10-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-15T17:01:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-purushotham-rao-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-october-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-purushotham-rao-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-october-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-purushotham-rao-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-october-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"V. Purushotham Rao vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 October, 2001"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/177981","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=177981"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/177981\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=177981"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=177981"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=177981"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}