VARGHESE GEORGE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this Original Petition as a public interest litigation challenging the decision/order of the first respondent by which the telephone and cooking gas (LPG) connection quotas for Lok Sabha Members were restored and raised to 160 from 50 in every year. According to the petitioner, the above decision to restore the quota is discriminatory and arbitrary. It is further submitted on the strength of various rulings of the Supreme Court that this allotment of quotas to the Members of Parliament would ultimately lead to arbitrariness and gross violation of the constitutional norms. According to the petitioner, such privileges are not to be conferred on the Members of Parliament and they cannot claim any better privilege, in the matter of allotment of LPG connections and telephone connections than which the ordinary citizens of this country enjoy.

(2.) Sri. Tony George Kannanthanam, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision reported in Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. ( 1991 (1) SCC 212 ). In the above case the Supreme Court was considering the case of termination of appointments of Government counsel. I do not think the above case has any relevance in deciding this Original Petition. The learned counsel also relied on another decision of the Supreme Court reported in Prem Chand Somchand Shah v. Union of India ( 1991 (2) SCC 48 ). The learned counsel particularly relied on Para.8 of the above decision which reads as follows:

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent it has been stated that the connections provided on the recommendation to the Members of Parliament are not arbitrary, discriminatory or violative of Art.14 of the Constitution or against public interest. It was contended in the counter affidavit that the Members of Parliament are publicmen and elected representatives of the people and are in a better position to appreciate the special needs of particular persons residing within or outside their constituency. If L.P.G. or telephone connections are provided on the recommendations of MP's, it can be safely assumed that such recommendations are made after assessment of the factual and urgent need of the recommended person. Thus, according to the counter affidavit, the classification is reasonable and has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved namely to assess the emergent needs of the needy individual in a correct manner and to help them. It was further stated in the counter affidavit that the coupon for L.P.G. connection issued by a Member of Parliament will be valid for release of L.P.G. connections only in his constituency. The Honourable Speaker of the Lok Sabha announced in the House that each member of Parliament belonging to Lok Sabha would be provided 160 LPG connections per year. Such connections would be released in the respective constituencies by the Members. It was further averred in the counter affidavit that the Hon'ble Speaker called the Hon'ble Ministers for Parliamentary Affairs, Communications, Minister of State (P & NG) and leaders of parties and groups in Lok Sabha and after consulting them decided to continue the L.P.G. connections quota to Lok Sabha MPs.