MUKUND SWARUP MISHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Interim applications have been filed by the applicants who are aggrieved by the Report made by a Committee appointed by this Court while dealing with and deciding transferred cases in Onkar Lal Bajaj and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr. (2002) 5 Suppl. SCR 605 .

(2.) It may be stated that a news item appeared in Indian Express dated August 2, 2002 alleging political linkage/patronize in allotment of retail outlets of petroleum products, LPG distributorship and SKO-LDO dealership. Between August 2 and August 5, 2002, certain names were published by the said newspaper and it was stated that without following guidelines, dealers/ distributors were appointed on the basis of political linkage/patronize/linkage. A question was also raised in Parliament. Consequent upon criticism by the Press and Parliament, cases were reviewed on August 5, 2002 by the then Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Petroleum & Natural Gas and Minister of Parliamentary Affairs also participated in the review process. In view of the controversy in allotment, the Prime Minister directed the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas to cancel all allotments made with effect from January, 2000 till date. Press release was issued by the Press Information Bureau and a formal order was issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas on August 9, 2002 cancelling all allotments.

(3.) The said order was challenged by aggrieved allottees by instituting writ petitions in several High Courts. Transfer petitions were filed in this Court and this Court, in Onkar Lal Bajaj disposed of all the petitions by setting aside the order dated August 9, 2002 passed by the Central Government and by appointing a Committee comprising of Honble Mr. Justice S.C. Agrawal, a retired Judge of this Court and Honble Mr. Justice P.K. Bahri, a retired Judge of the High Court of Delhi, to examine 413 cases of allotment. This Court requested the Committee to submit its report within a period of three months. The said decision dated December 20, 2002 is reported in, (2002) 5 Suppl. SCR 605 . The directions which were issued by this Court were as under: