Shut them down, SC rules on BJP-tainted petrol pumps

The bench headed by Justice Sabharwal said those allotments cancelled on the basis of the report will have to close their outlets within three months.

The court rejected the contention that the court-appointed committee, comprising former Supreme Court judge S C Agarwal and former Delhi High Court Justice P K Bahri, did not have the jurisdiction to go into the issue of allotment.

However, those allotments that were protected by the interim order will continue until further orders of the court. The Bench referred the matter to the registry for placing it before the next Chief Justice to assign the matter to another bench.

The two-member committee was appointed to look into the procedure adopted by the Dealer Selection Boards for approving the allotments after a reported expose in 2002.

The committee had said that most of the allotments were illegal and were given on extraneous considerations and had recommended cancellation of such allotments. The apex court on the basis of the report cancelled many of them. Over 400 cases of tainted allotment reported by The Indian Express were referred to the Committee.

In December 2002, the Supreme Court had quashed the Central Government8217;s notification cancelling all the 3,760 allotments.

The three-member Bench reiterated the committee8217;s finding that no allotment was cancelled 8220;merely on the ground of political linkage/patronage but while considering the legality or otherwise of the allotment, political linkage/patronage was kept in mind as one of the factors.8221;

Even after recording a finding that there was a political linkage for the allotment, the Committee considered whether the authorities made the allotment at the cost of merit and ignoring public interest, the Court said.

8220;Only in those cases where merits have suffered or allotment has been made on extraneous considerations that the Committee held the allotment as contrary to law,8221; the Bench, which also included Justice C K Thakker and R V Raveendran, said.

The Court rejected the 8220;preliminary objection8221; raised by the applicants. 8220;It could not be said that the Court was to consider only political linkage/patronage and the Committee had exceeded its powers and/or jurisdiction in taking into account other extraneous matters. In fact, the Court8217;s direction was to consider extraneous considerations, if any, in allotment and if so, to pass an appropriate order and to report on those aspects,8221; the judgment said.

Of the 409 cases, more than 100 cases were approved on merit and 297 allotments were found being not in accordance with the guidelines and therefore could not be approved.

8220;Maybe the petitioners have spent some amount. But once the allotment itself was found to be vitiated, obviously they cannot claim any benefit as allotment was contrary to law. Moreover, such allotment has been made in remote past and even though an order of cancellation had been passed by the Central Government as early as in August, 2002, the allottees have been protected by an interim order passed by this Court,8221; the order said.

Accepting the contention of Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramaniam, who was appointed as the amicus, that the Committee carried out a 8220;Herculean task,8221; the Judges made it clear that individual complaint of an allottee would only be considered 8220;if he can successfully satisfy this Court that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding of the Committee that the allotment was not on merits was not correct.8221;