S P THIRUMALA RAO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to implement the Tatkal Scheme. Under the Tatkal Scheme a person paying Rs. 4,000/- would be given out of turn allotment of LPG cylinders for domestic use.

(2.) THE petitioner has averred in the petition that the marketing of lpg is being regulated by the first respondent through three Public sector Companies and several private dealers. As there were many shortcomings in the marketing of LPG, a Committee under one Mrs. Sudha Joshi was appointed to study the problems of the LPG consumers and dealers and submit its recommendations. The Committee submitted its report and the first respondent accepted it. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though the first respondent accepted it, it has not so far given effect to any of the recommendations of the Committee and on the other hand it has now come up with the impugned Tatkal Scheme for out of turn allotment of LPG connections to persons who pay Rs. 4,000/ -. It is the case of the petitioner that this out of turn allotment of LPG connections under the Tatkal Scheme is discriminatory and it would enable the persons having better means to get the connection immediately at the cost of the not so privileged who would be constrained to wait longer for the connections because of the out of turn allotments under the Tatkal Scheme. The petitioner has also drawn the attention of the Court through the averments in the petition to the pricing policy adopted by the first respondent which, according to him, brings about a loss of Rs. 2. 00 to 2. 50 crores per annum to the Government. On the basis of these and other averments made in the petition, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents not to give effect to the tatkal Scheme.

(3.) THE petitioner filed this petition in the year 1997 i. e. , immediately after the introduction of the Tatkal Scheme. During that period there was a long waiting list for availment of the LPG connections and a dual price structure was being adopted by the respondents. The present scenario is radically different from the one that existed at the time of filing of the writ petition. Now the subsidy has been minimised to a large extent in the case of domestic consumers and no subsidy is being provided to the commercial consumers. Thus, the grievance of the petitioner insofar as the pricing of the LPG cyclinders does not really survive for consideration.