RAJU SEBASTIAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions are filed challenging circulars issued by the Oil Companies seeking details including income-tax returns, sales-tax returns and Bank statements of the petitioners. The petitioners, who are dealers of petroleum products under the respondent public sector Oil Companies, challenge Exhibit P2 series of circulars directing them to submit the details of dealerships including sales tax returns, income tax returns and Bank statements for the relevant financial years. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in K.S.Puttaswamy v. Union of India [(2017)10 SCC 1], it is contended that tax returns and Bank statements are private information in respect of the petitioners and the compulsory disclosure of the same would amount to violation of the fundamental right of privacy guaranteed to the petitioners. It is stated that all formalities required for grant of licence have been complied with in full by the petitioners. It is further submitted that there are specific checks and measures in force and the Oil Companies are enabled to access all necessary information with regard to the retail dealers as well as the licences. It is stated that the income-tax returns of the petitioners would reveal much about their financial activities and would contain information which is completely unconnected with the dealership. It is stated that the details of income-tax returns, sales-tax returns and Bank details are completely unnecessary for the continuation of Dispensing Pump and Selling Licence agreement entered into by the petitioners with the public sector Oil Companies. It is stated that an ultimatum has been issued by the respondents stating that they will stop supplying petroleum products to the petitioners, if the required documents are not submitted. Relying on the decisions of the Apex Court in District Registrar and Collector v. Canara Bank [(2005)1 SCC 496], Ram Rethmalani v. Union of India [(2011)8 SCC 1] and K.S.Puttaswamy's case (supra), learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the compulsory requirement that the petitioners should furnish private information relating to them for the continuance of the licence agreement is completely unjustified and is violative of their valuable right to privacy.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 2 and

(3.) as well as by the 4th respondent. It is stated in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 2 and 3 that no personal details of the petitioners are being sought for by the respondents. It is stated at paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit of respondents 2 and 3 as follows: