PRAKASH SINGA GAVITversusTHE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:22044-DB


                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                             PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.93 OF 2021


                                        PRAKASH SINGA GAVIT
                                                VERSUS
                   THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
                      PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, NEW DELHI AND OTHERS
                                                    ...
                                Mr. R.R. Sancheti, Advocate for petitioner
                Mr. Rohit Sarvadnya, Advocate h/f Mr. A.G. Tahlar, D.S.G.I. for respondent
                                               Nos.1 to 3
                                Mr. A.M. Phule, AGP for respondent No.4
                             Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate for respondent No.5
                        Mrs. Anjali Dube (Bajpai), Advocate for respondent No.6
                                                    ...

                                             CORAM :      SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &
                                                          AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ.

                                             DATE :       30th APRIL, 2026



            ORDER :       ( PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )



            .             Present petition has been filed for issuance of writ, thereby

            directing respondent Nos.5 to 7 to recognize and give effect to the Scheduled

            Tribe (Maharashtra) Order, 1985 issued by the Hon’ble President of India

            while determining the reservations and thereafter while allotting the LPG
                                       2                             907_PIL_93_2021



Distributorship in tribal areas and issue appropriate orders for the said

purpose. The petitioner is also seeking directions against respondent Nos.5

to 7 to give equal treatment to all the tribal people residing in scheduled

areas and to provide the same opportunities and benefits to them as provided

for the tribal areas mentioned in the 5 th Schedule of the Constitution of India.

Other consequential prayers have also been made including re-advertisement

of the location in the advertisement in June, 2017, whereby 200 point roaster

was considered for the entire State as opposed to 200 point roster considered

for other tribal specific States.


2            Heard learned Advocate Mr. R.R. Sancheti for petitioner, learned

Advocate Mr. Rohit Sarvadnya holding for learned DSGI Mr. A.G. Talhar for

respondent Nos.1 to 3, learned AGP Mr. A.M. Phule for respondent No.4,

learned Advocate Mr. A.P. Bhandari for respondent No.5 and learned

Advocate Mrs. Anjali Dube for respondent No.6.


3            Learned Advocate for petitioner submits that the petitioner had

approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.14405 of 2017, which was

dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 03.09.2021, however, while

dismissing a clarification was given by the Court that the dismissal of the said

petition shall not come in way of a Public Interest Litigation, if filed, and,

therefore, the petitioner has filed present petition.    Learned Advocate for
                                      3                             907_PIL_93_2021



petitioner contends that a thorough research was conducted in respect of the

said matter and the information was gathered when the petitioner had filed

Writ Petition No.14405 of 2017. Various orders those were passed in the said

matter show that the point raised by petitioner is legal and has valid grounds.

Though in the said writ petition same reliefs were claimed; yet this Court

itself had given an opportunity to petitioner to file the Public Interest

Litigation.   Initially in the said writ petition by order dated 13.12.2017

respondent companies were directed that they should not issue orders in

respect of selected persons. Thereafter, the interim order was modified, from

time to time. The point the petitioner intends to raise is that Part X of the

Constitution of India provides for Scheduled and Tribal areas.       The fifth

Schedule to the Constitution of India makes provisions in respect of

administration and control over such areas.      As per Clause I of the said

Schedule the State of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram are kept

outside the purview of the Schedule. Under Part C of fifth Schedule Hon’ble

the President of India is empowered to declare any area as a Scheduled area.

It is a matter of record that by presidential order dated 02.12.1985 Hon’ble

President of India has passed an order by name ‘The Scheduled Areas

(Maharashtra) Order, 1985’. The status of scheduled area has been conferred

on various parts in 13 districts of the State of Maharashtra. The declaration

is qua various villages, Tahsils and districts located in the State.      Tahsil
                                      4                            907_PIL_93_2021



Navapur was erstwhile part of Dhule district, however, now it is forming part

of Nandurbar district. Nandurbar district is declared as a Scheduled area as

per the said order of 1985. Respondent No.1 had enacted the provisions of

the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 for providing

for the extension of part IX of the Constitution to the Scheduled area. By way

of 89th amendment to the Constitution on 20.09.2002 Article 338-A was

inserted, whereby National Commission for Scheduled Tribes is constituted.

The said commission has been saddled with various duties including to

recommend measures for effective implementation and safeguard the

protection, welfare and socio economic development of the Scheduled Tribes.

Various review meetings take place and in one of such review meetings dated

03-05.08.2017 a recommendation was made i.e. ‘Dealership of Petrol Pumps

and LPG Gas agencies may be operated by only Scheduled Tribe dealer in

Tribal areas’. Though the recommendation has been made, it is not yet been

implemented. Respondent Nos.5 to 7 companies are also not taking any step

to implement the said recommendation. Around June, 2017 respondent Oil

companies published unified guidelines for selection of LPG distributors. The

said guidelines were divided as Sheheri Vitarak, Rurban, Gramin Vitarak and

Durgam Kshetriya Vitarak (DVK). The DVK type of distributorship consists of

LPG distributorship in difficult and special areas.   The guidelines further

provide for 200 point roster, which means the set of serial numbers from 1 to
                                      5                             907_PIL_93_2021



100 against each serial number reservation seat is allocated such that when

200 numbers of distributors are planned in the roster, the percentage

reservation of each category is achieved. If the unified guidelines applied to

State of Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Nagaland and Mizoram are made

applicable, then the percentage would be different. The Scheduled areas

inhibited by Scheduled Tribes predominantly should receive the same

treatment and the facilities including the reservations. The petitioner as well

as learned Advocate for petitioner has tried to demonstrate as to how the

percentage with the Scheduled areas in Maharashtra would differ than the

percentage that is applied to the North East region. The policy of reservation

adopted by respondent Nos.5 to 7 would divide the country into two zones;

out of which first zone consists of North Eastern States and the second zone

would be rest of the country. This is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable. If

there is proper implementation of the presidential order, then this anomaly

can be redressed.


4           Learned Advocate for petitioner has taken us through the various

documents including the petition filed by petitioner on the earlier occasion

i.e. Writ Petition No.14405 of 2017, the order passed in the said matter on

03.09.2021, even the earlier orders those were passed in the said matter, the

Scheduled Areas (Maharashtra) Order, 1985 and the present advertisement
                                       6                              907_PIL_93_2021



that came to be issued in June, 2017. Then he submits that certainly there is

an anomaly and it can be seen from the advertisement.              The area of

reservation would change. He, therefore, advocated for allowing the matter.


5            Respondent No.6 has filed affidavit of Mr. Srinivas Pratti, Deputy

General Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Aurangabad,

wherein it is stated that respondent is a Government company registered

under the Companies Act, 2013. The advertisements of LPG Distributorship

are issued after identifying the locations, for which feasibility survey is

undertaken by the competent officers of the respective oil companies. While

doing so, apart from feasibility of the location, the factors which were taken

into consideration are the population (household) as per the census and

decadal growth to arrive at the decision to identify the location of particular

village / town. The feasibility reports so prepared were subject to 200 point

roster formula before releasing the advertisement for the identified locations

which is approved by the MOPNG. The Oil companies formulate guidelines

for the selection of distributors for all locations is advertised for appointment

of LPG distributors, from time to time, under the approval of Ministry of

Petroleum and Natural Gas (MOPNG). The petitioner had also filed and

exhausted his remedy by filing Writ Petition No.14405 of 2017. It came to be

dismissed and now the same point has been agitated. The petitioner is also a
                                        7                            907_PIL_93_2021



beneficiary of such scheme of the Government and now he intends to

challenge the said system through which he has already received the benefits.

The petitioner cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold at the same time.

Running of Distributorship is a commercial transaction for which the

distributors are paid in the form of commission.       The beneficiary of the

petroleum products is the public at large.       The advertisement that was

published in June, 2017 was ‘that unified guidelines of selection of LPG

distributors, June, 2017’.    The locations were advertised on 30.08.2017

inviting applications.    Petitioner’s attempt to challenge those rules by

applying the provisions of PESA Act which is enacted to provide the extension

of provisions of Part IX of Constitution of India, relating to the Panchayats to

the Scheduled areas, appears to be totally misconceived. State legislation has

intended to extend the provisions relating to Panchayats to the Scheduled

areas in consonance with their customary law, social and religious practices

as well as traditional management practices of community resources. The

purpose for which PESA Act was enacted is different and, therefore, same

percentage cannot be made applicable in the present case. Parawise reply

has been given by the said authority to object the petition. Further, it is

stated   that   unified   guidelines   have   been   formulated,   taking     into

consideration the overall percentage of reservation decided for various

categories and States, specifically based on the percentage of population
                                        8                            907_PIL_93_2021



under each category for each State. The purpose of advertising new locations

for LPG distributorship under DKV category was to reach out to the rural

areas in the remote part of the State and provide LPG in those remotest areas

for health and environmental reasons.


6             Affidavit-in-reply has been given by Mr. Chetan Patwari s/o

Krishan Patwari, the Divisional LPG Sales Head, Aurangabad, Indane

Divisional Office for respondent No.5. He reiterates the same facts and takes

objection to the petition by stating that the petition has been filed under

misconception and PESA Act cannot be made applicable to the unified

guidelines.


7             All the respective Advocates representing respondent Nos.1 to 6

submit that now as regards advertisement which was given in June, 2017

almost the entire procedure is complete and they have specifically submitted

that in the order passed by this Court on 21.09.2021 a statement was made

that petitioner is not claiming any personal interest, however, it has been

suppressed by petitioner that he is the recipient of the benefit given under the

scheme. Notices came to be issued by order dated 12.10.2021, wherein it

was submitted on behalf of petitioner that petitioner is assailing the

reservation provided under the brochure on unified guidelines for selection of

LPG distributors.   In the State of Maharashtra there are scheduled areas
                                       9                            907_PIL_93_2021



wherein the reservations for Scheduled Tribe ought to be provided 50%.

Similar reservation is provided in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya,

Nagaland and Mizoram.        The same ought to have been applied to the

scheduled areas in the State of Maharashtra. In fact, the guidelines would be

given by the companies separately each year and, therefore, for the challenge

to the unified guidelines for selection of LPG distributorship of June, 2017

the cause of action is not surviving as on today.


8            Here, first and the foremost fact is that the guidelines which are

under challenge before this Court in the present petition are the unified

guidelines for selection of LPG distributors Sheheri Vitarak, Rurban, Gramin

Vitarak and Durgam Kshetriya Vitarak issued in June, 2017. The earlier writ

petition filed by present petitioner to challenge the same guidelines i.e. Writ

Petition No.14405 of 2017 was dismissed on 03.09.2021 by the Judgment i.e.

a reasoned Judgment and thereafter the present Public Interest Litigation

came to be filed on 04.09.2021 i.e. on the next day itself of the dismissal of

his earlier writ petition by taking advantage of observations in paragraph

No.23. We reproduce paragraph No.23 for the convenience :


       “23. We, however, find it appropriate to record that the
       dismissal of this petition would not mean that a Public Interest
       Litigation Petition would be shut out if filed by a person in
       public interest and which satisfies the prescribed requirements
                                       10                             907_PIL_93_2021



        of law as are laid down in the Bombay High Court Public
        Interest Litigation Rules, 2010.”


             It was observed that the said writ petition which was not in the

nature of public interest had failed to show any legal injury suffered by

petitioner and does not espouse a personal cause. Even after the dismissal of

the writ petition it appears that learned Advocate for petitioner prayed for

continuation of interim relief, which was then opposed and by the same order

the Division Bench of this Court observed that they were not inclined to

continue the interim relief and, therefore, it was then rejected. The first

order in this matter came to be passed on 21.09.2021, however, at that time

also no interim relief was given. The petitioner was asked to deposit amount

of Rs.75,000/- to show his bona fides as per Rule 7-A of the Bombay High

Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010. Thereafter also the matter was

on board on 12.10.2021, on which day the notices came to be issued to

respondents. Thereafter, till 02.04.2026 the matter was never got circulated

by petitioner. That means, for about 5½ years the petitioner kept quiet,

though he intended to raise a public interest. This fact itself is required to be

taken against petitioner. If he had really the intention to raise the issue as a

Public Interest Litigation after the dismissal of his writ petition which was in

the private interest that is his own interest, the petitioner ought to have been

vigilant.
                                      11                             907_PIL_93_2021



9           Perusal of the Judgment in Writ Petition No.14405 of 2017 dated

03.09.2021 would show that all the earlier interim orders were considered by

this Court, wherein itself in order dated 14.12.2018, note was taken that at

various locations the distributorship has been allotted and it is to the

Scheduled Tribes category persons.      It was then clarified that the earlier

interim order dated 13.12.2017 will not come in the way of Petroleum

Companies to proceed further in the matter. Therefore, as per the orders

dated 11.12.2018 and 14.12.2018 it appears that this Court had relaxed the

injunction granted earlier and permitted the appointment of LPG

distributorship of few more locations. Even at that time the learned Advocate

appearing for Petroleum Companies submitted that petitions at that time

were then rendered purely for an academic purpose, as the petitioner was not

seeking any relief for himself. Thereafter, all the contentions by petitioner

and Petroleum Companies were heard and noted by this Court and taking

into consideration the earlier other decisions of this Court observations have

been made that the Petroleum Companies are providing essential

commodities to the rural masses at their doorsteps and such policy, which is

in the larger public interest for rural population, should not be stalled on the

grounds canvassed by the petitioners since they have no legal right to seek

prohibition against the petroleum companies to appoint new distributors. Of

course, then by way of paragraph No.23 the liberty of filing a Public Interest
                                     12                            907_PIL_93_2021



Litigation was given to petitioner; yet, the other observations by this Court

would then be binding on petitioner. It has been observed that the Petroleum

Companies have announced that the applicants belonging to the Scheduled

Tribe category would be given preference considering the needs of the tribals

in such areas and thereupon various persons from Scheduled Tribes had come

forward and participated in the advertisement. Now, whether to consider the

contention of petitioner only for academic purposes is required to be

considered.


10            Learned Advocate for petitioner is relying on the Scheduled

Areas (Maharashtra) Order, 1985. The areas were declared as Scheduled

areas in the exercise of powers conferred by sub paragraph (2) of paragraph

(6) of 5th Schedule to the Constitution of India. No doubt, the Tahsildar of

Navapur then from Dhule district now in Nandurbar district was declared as

Scheduled area.      The petitioner submits that these areas should be

considered at par with the States of Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram

and Nagaland. As per the unified guidelines of June, 2017, except from these

four States all other States’ reservation was given for the open category 50.5

% Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribes (SC / ST) 22.5% and other backward

classes (OBC) 27.0%.     Class V of the guidelines relates to rostering of

locations. Sub Clause (c) states that “The ‘200 point roster’ will be followed
                                       13                             907_PIL_93_2021



on rolling basis. Within a State, the distribution of locations reserved for SC

or ST will be based on the ratio of population of SC & ST of the State.” Sub

Clause (d) provides – “There will be separate ‘200’ point rosters maintained

on All India basis at Head Officer of IOCL-one combined roster for “Sheheri

Vitarak and Rurban Vitarak”, one for Gramin Vitarak and one for Durgam

Kshetriya Vitarak.” Sub Clause (e) provides that “For the State of Arunachal

Pradesh, Meghalaya, Nagaland and Mizoram, 100 point roster shall be

prepared and same will be maintained at Indian Oil Corporation AOD State

Office, Guwahati.    The roster serial number under Unified Guidelines for

Selection of Distributors will start from serial number 1.”


11           Thus, it can be seen that the unified policy states that the

reservation for SC and ST will be based on ratio of population of SC and ST

of the State. In the entire petition, the petitioner has not stated that there are

no persons from SC category in Navapur area. When the policy is roughly

done on the basis of population ratio, then it cannot be stated that it is

contrary or violative of the provisions of the Constitution of India. Secondly,

as aforesaid, already the entire allocation of the points appears to have been

done under June, 2017 policy. There is no necessity to take cognizance of the

matter further. Secondly, on the point of delay also that is not persuading the

matter for about 5½ years, we do not find any merit in the present petition
                                     14                            907_PIL_93_2021



now with a statement that there is change in the policy now. Hence, the

petition stands dismissed.   The amount of Rs.75,000/- deposited by the

petitioner to show his bona fides be credited to the High Court Legal Services

Sub Committee, Aurangabad.




( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )                ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )




agd