In what will force the pace of the Government to implement Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee’s directive, two courts — Delhi High Court and Rajasthan High Court — today issued a stay order on the Centre’s notification cancelling allotments of petrol pumps and LPG dealerships issued after January 2000, following an expose in The Indian Express. This comes a day after the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s direction to oil companies, asking them not to cancel the licences without following the ‘‘due course of law and principles of natural justice.’’ Just a week after Vajpayee’s order, Justice Karni Singh Rathore of the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan HC today ruled that ‘‘no action will be taken against dealers without issuing notice to them and according them opportunity of a hearing’’. With this, as many as 90 petrol pump and LPG dealers have got temporary reprieve. The court directed the counsel for the five oil companies, Sudhanshu Kasliwal, to file a reply by August 21. What the courts said RAJASTHAN Court order: No action against dealers without issuing notice to them and according them opportunity of hearing Reprieve to: 90 petrol pump owners and LPG dealers Argument: As per 1997 SC judgment in Delhi housing scam, notices, through newspapers, have to be issued to those concerned DELHI Court order: Status quo shall be maintained Reprieve to: One petrol pump owner, one LPG dealer Argument: An unequal person cannot be treated as equal in a sweeping order ANDHRA PRADESH Court order: Licences cannot be cancelled without following the ‘‘due course of law and principles of natural justice.’’ Reprieve to: About 400 petrol pump owners and LPG dealers Argument: Under Petroleum Control Orders, dealers are entitled to a notice The order followed a petition by Chattar Ram Meena, a petrol pump owner from Sawai Madhopur. Citing the 1997 SC judgment in the housing allotment scam in Delhi, Meena’s lawyer Jagdeep Dhankar pointed out that notices, through newspapers, have to be issued to the concerned persons. He also argued that since the government had no role in the actual dealership and the oil companies had enacted separate contractual agreements with the dealers, the order was without jurisdiction. Dhankar’s third point of legalese stated that ‘‘the order injures public interest as widows, freedom fighters, handicapped people and unemployed youth are being made to suffer for no fault of theirs.’’ Close on the heels of the order issued by the Jaipur Bench, the Delhi HC granted an interim stay against the cancellation of the allotment of a petrol pump to a woman and an LPG agency to a handicapped ex-serviceman in Bareilly. Justice Manmohan Sarin ruled that ‘‘status quo shall be maintained in their cases’’. Accepting the contention of the two petitioners, Radhika Backliwal and Rathi Bhan Singh Rathour, that the government cannot cancel genuine allotments in a sweeping order, the HC accepted their counsels’ argument that ‘‘an unequal person could not be treated as equal’’. The court further queried that had not the government ‘‘overreacted’’ in the matter. The court also issued notices to the Centre, Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL), directing them to file their replies by September 6. While Backliwal submitted that she was selected from among 195 competitors by the Dealership Selection Board (DSB) purely on merit and she neither had any political connection nor any ‘‘influence’’, Rathour said he was given the LPG agency under the Defence category. Both have sought quashing of the government’s cancellation order. Meanwhile, oil companies have filed over 3,500 caveats in various courts to ensure that no ex-parte order is passed in the case.
