Supreme Court of India
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.versusSHASHI PRABHA SHUKLA & ANR.
- Citation
- 2017 INSC 1237
- Decided
- 15 December 2017
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- N V RAMANA
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the original dealership cancellation was lawful, the lease terminated, and the High Court’s direction to award a fresh dealership to the respondent was invalid as it perpetuated an unlawful benefit, thus the dealership remains cancelled and a fresh auction must be conducted.
Summary
The Delhi High Court had cancelled a petrol pump dealership granted to Shashi Prabha Shukla on grounds of favouritism and directed Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) to auction the right to operate the outlet at a nearby location. IOC instead advertised an auction for the same site, failed to identify a new location, and later obtained a High Court order allowing Shukla to continue operating and to be awarded a fresh dealership under a 2004 policy. The Supreme Court held that the cancellation of the original dealership was valid, the lease terminated, and the direction to award a new dealership to Shukla would perpetuate an unlawful benefit, thereby setting aside the High Court order and directing the dealership remain cancelled with a fresh auction to be conducted in compliance with law. The Court also ordered an internal inquiry into errant officials. The appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- The validity of the cancellation of the original dealership granted to the respondent.
- Whether the High Court could direct the award of a fresh dealership to the respondent under the 2004 policy.
- Whether the lease between the parties survived the cancellation of the dealership.
- Whether the corporation complied with the High Court’s directions to conduct a fresh auction at a different location.
- Whether the award of a new dealership would constitute perpetuation of an unlawful benefit violating Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 19(1)(g), s. Article 300A
Subjects
public distributionpetrol pump dealershipspecial discretionary quotafavoritismpublic authorityadministrative lawArticle 14Article 19(1)(g)Article 300Aauctionlease terminationtransparencyfairnessnon-arbitrariness
Judgment
[2017] 13 S.C.R. 268
A INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.
V.
SHASHI PRABHA SHUKLA & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No.5565 of2009)
B DECEMBER 15,2017
(N.V. RAMANA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.]
Public Dilstribution: Petrol pump - Retail outlet dealership -
Special Discretionary Quota - Allotment of retail outlet dealership
c to re.1ponde11t - PIL challenging allotment - High Court cancelled
allotment on the ground that same was vitiated by favouritism -
High Court directed that in case the allottee whose allotment had
been cancelled was unwilling to sell/part with a land on which the
petrol pump was being operated, Corporation would auction the
right to open petrol pump within close proximity of the existing
D location as may be determined by it depending upon the facts and
circumstances of each case and the need of the public with the
stipulation that the highest bidder would arrange for the land!
superstructure for running petrol pump - The decision of High Court
became final a>id binding on the parties - Accordingly, Corporation
E issued a notice of termination of dealership agreement to respondent
- Respondent intimated that she was not interested in selling her
land on which the petrol pump distributorship was underway -
Co1poration thereafter issued advertisement to auction the outlet
hitherto allotted to respondent - Respondent challenged the
advertisement - High Court stayed the operation of auction notices
F and directed Corporation to permit respondent to run the dealership
until the auction was finalised - As the auction did not take place.
the High Court considering the fact that the respondent was permitted
to run the retail outlet since 1998, directed Corporation in view of
its new policy to award fresh dealership to respondent and restrain
G from interfering with her possession of the said premises - Appeal
by Corporation - Held: The direction to award the new dealership
to respondent amounted to perpetuation of the undue benefit, earlier
bestowed on the respondent by a method held to be illegal, dubious,
arbitrary and transgressive of public interest - The award of new
dealership to the respondent wholly undermined the purpose of
H
268
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. v. SHASHI 269
PRABHA SHUKLA & ANR.
cancelling her earlier dealership and annihilate the very objective A
of securing transparency, fairness and non-arbitrariness in the
matter of distribution of public contract - In taking the steps for
initiating a fresh process of auction, the defaults and de-relictions
of the Corporation and its fimctionaries are writ large and strongly
deprecated - Dealership of respondent at her present location is B
cancelled - Corporation directed to cause an in-house inquiry to
fix the liability of the errant officials on the issue - Public
functionary.
Public functionary: State largesse - Role of Government as
provider of services and benefits to the people - A public authority c
in its dealings has to be fair, objective, non-arbitrary, transparent
and non-discriminatory - The discretion vested in such an authority,
which is a concomitant of its power is coupled with duty and can
never be unregulated or unbridled - The State and its
instrumentalities, be it a public authority, either as an individual or
a collective has lo essentially abide by this inalienable and non- D
negotiable prescriptions and cannot act in breach of the trust
reposed by the polity and on extraneous considerations - In exercise
of uncontrolled discretion and power, it cannot resort to any act to
.fritter, squander and emasculate any public property, be it by way
of State largesse or contracts etc. E
Contract: Petrol pump - Retail outlet dealership - Grant of
dealership to respondent to nm petrol pump on land purchased by
respondent herself - Termination of dealership - Award the new
. dealership to a third party on her land - Held: With the termination
of the dealership, the lease between the parties also stood F
extinguished and therefore, the respondent being the owner of the
land and she having expressed her disinclination to sell or part
with it, the Corporation by no means could have contemplated to
.award the new dealership to a third party on her land.
G
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The failure of the Corporation to act in terms of
the directions containing in the judgment and order of the High
Court and in contending that the land of the respondent was
H
270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS. [2017] 13 S.C.R.
A available for commissioning the new dealership is patently wrong.
In view of the persistent omissions and commissions of the
Corporation, that it is not unlikely that all these might have been
strategised to eventually benefit the respondent in the long run.
[Para 22) [284-B, D-E)
B 2. A public authority, be a person or an administrative body
is entrusted with the role to perform for the benefit of the public
and not for private profit and when a prima facie case of misuse of
power is made out, it is open to a court to draw the inference that
unauthorized purposes have been pursued, if the competent
c authority fails to adduce any ground supporting the validity of its
conduct. The State and Its instrumentalities, be it a public
authority, either as an individual or a collective has to essentially
abide by this inalienable and non-negotiable prescriptions and
cannot act in breach of the trust reposed by the polity and on
extraneous considerations. In exercise of uncontrolled discretion
D and power, it cannot resort to any act to fritter, squander and
emasculate any public property, be it by way of State largesse or
contracts etc. Such outrages would clearly be unconstitutional
and extinctive of the rule of law which forms the bedrock of the
constitutional order. [Paras 23, 33) [28S-A-B; 290-B-C)
E
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport
Authority of India (1979) 3 SCC 489 : (1979) 3 SCR
1014 ; Natural Resources Allocation, In Re Special
Reference No. I of 2012 ; Center for Public Interest
Litigation and others v. Union of India and others
F (2012) 3 SCC 2 ; Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress
v. State of MP. (2011) S SCC 29 : (2011) S SCR 77 -
relied on.
3. The dealership of the respondent had been cancelled
being vitiated by favourtism due to exercise of fanciful discretion
G of the Departmental Minister, which was neither approved nor
condoned. Nevertheless, the Corporation visibly did not act in
terms of the judgment and order of the High Court in initiating
the fresh process for auction. This led to the challenge to the
faulty advertisement dated OS.10.1998 and the corrigendum dated
H
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. v. SHASHI 271
PRABHA SHUKLA & ANR.
13.10.1998, the operation whereof to start with was stayed and A
thereafter the respondent was permitted to continue with the
dealership and eventually she was directed to be awarded a fresh
dealership by converting the existing dealership under its policy
dated 12.02.2004. The dealership of the respondent having been
cancelled w.e.f. 01.12.1997, though the operation of the auction B
notice and the corrigendum thereto had been stayed and she had
been allowed to run the outlet, how all these could be construed
to signify that her dealership did subsist from the date of the
impugned judgment and order. There was thus no scope for
conversion of the existing dealership to a new dealership as
ordered. In addition thereto, the direction to award the new C
dealership under the prevalent policy, having regard to the
backdrop of adjudication undertaken by the High Court would
amount to perpetuation of the undue benefit, earlier bestowed
on her by a method held to be illegal, dubious, arbitrary and
transgressive of public interest. In other words, the award of new D
dealership to the respondent in the prevailing facts and
circumstances, would amount to allowing the respondent to enjoy
the premium of the illegality and arbitrariness resorted to in
granting her the earlier dealership and reward her as a beneficiary
of unlawful administrative patronage. The award of new dealership
to the respondent would wholly undermine the purpose of E
cancelling her earlier dealership and annihilate the very objective
of securing transparency, fairness and non-arbitrariness in the
matter of distribution of public contract. In taking the steps for
initiating a fresh process of auction, the defaults and de-relictions
of the Corporation and its functionaries are writ large and deserve
F
to be strongly deprecated. The omissions and commissions do
have the potential of suggesting pre-determined perceptions and
motivations in aid of the respondent, resulting in such
disagreeable culmination in her favour. The time lag, per se cannot
purge the vitiation of the award of dealership originally granted
to the respondent, to entitle her to the relief granted by the G
impugned judgment and order, by way of a boon for the inexplicable
faults and remiss in duty of the functionaries of the Corporation.
The impugned judgment and order is, therefore set aside so far
as it holds that the respondent is entitled to a new dealership at
H
272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 13 S.C.R.
A her location under the Policy. The dealership of the respondent
at her present location is cancelled w.e.f. 01.12.1997. The
Corporation would ·initiate a fresh process for award of new
distributorship/dealership in the area and at a location to be
determined by It, if it considers it necessary in public interest
strictly in conformity with law and the constitutionally recognized
B
norms of transparency, objectivity and fairness. The Corporation
is directed to cause an in-house inquiry to be made to fix the
liability of the errant officials on the issue and decide appropriate
action(s) against them in accordance with law. (Paras 34, 351 (290-
D-H) (291-A-F, H ; 292-A)
c
Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
(1968) AC 997 - referred to.
Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Vol.1(1)
Administrative Law; Foulkes Administrative Law,
D 71h Edition at page 174 ; "Administrative Law", Tenth
Edition by H.W.R. Wade and C.F. Forsyth;
Administrative Law (6th Edu.) Prof. H.W.R. Wade -
referred to.
Case Law Reference
E
[20111 5 SCR 77 relied on Para 27
[1979) 3 SCR 1014 relied on Para 30
(2012) 3 sec 2 relied on Para 32
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5565
of2009.
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.l 0.2004 of the High Court
G of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.34886of1998.
Annam D. N. Rao, Annam Venkatesh, Sudipto Sircar, Rahul
Mishra, Ms. Tulika Chikker. Ms. Varsha Poddar,Advs for the Appellants.
Tripurari Ray, B. S. Billowria, Praveen Kumar, Suresh Kr. Sharma,
H Devashish Chauhan, Vishnu Sharma, Advs for the Respondents.
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. v. SHASHI 273
PRABHA SHUKLA & ANR.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A
AMITAVA ROY, J. I. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited
(hereafter to be referred to as the "IOC/Corporation") and its
functionaries, in this appeal seek to overturn the judgment and order
dated 04.10.2004 rendered by the High Court ofJudicature at Allahabad
in Civil Misc. Petition No. 34886 of! 998, thereby directing the Corporation B
to convert the dealership of a petrol pump initially allotted in favour of
the respondent No. I (hereafter to be referred to as the "respondent")
under the discretionary quota of the Departmental Minister concerned
to one under its (appellant) circular No.67-2/2K4 dated 12.02.2004 and
restraining it as well from interfering with the possession of the
respondent of the installation premises. As the sequence of events would C
unfold, the attendant facts do project a distressing state of affairs in the
matter of distribution of State largesse, seemingly motivated by irrelevant
considerations, deliberate defaults and casual disregard to bindingjudicial
adjudications of a Constitutional Court.
2. We have heard Mr. Annam D.N. Rao, learned counsel for the D
appellants and Mr. Tripurari Ray, learned counsel for the respondent
No. I. Though served, but none has filed vakalatnarna on behalf of
respondent No. 2.
3. First the skeletal facts, to facilitate the desired grip of the issues
to be addressed. The respondent herein, claiming to be an unemployed E
graduate but actively involved in activities pertaining to rural development
and welfare of women, but without any regular source of livelihood,
applied to the then Minister of Petroleum, Goverrnnent of India, New
Delhi for being sanctioned a petrol pump under his Special Discretionary
Quota on the National Highway, Phutahia Chauraha, Tehsil and District F
Bas ti, U.P. The application was considered for allotment of a retail outlet
dealership on compassionate ground and was forwarded for necessary
follow-up action to the Direction (Marketing}, Indian Oil Corporation,
Bombay on 08.08.1985. In deference to the said communication, the
Corporation issued a Letter Of Intent (LOI) on 04.10.1995 for a retail
outlet dealership in motor spirit and high speed diesel oil on the National G
Highway at Phutahia Chauraha, District Basti under "A" category.
Thereafter a lease deed was executed on 16 .09 .1996 between the
respondent and the appellant/Corporation for a period of 30 years at a
monthly rent of Rs.1650/- payable to the former by the latter w.e.f.
H
274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.
A 01.03.1996 and was made renewable at the option of the parties. It was
inter alia agreed that the appellant/Corporation would develop the retail
outlet and provide the same to the respondent with certain facilities,
such as, a suitable plot of land duly developed as an outlet with office
building, storage, tank and pump, air facility etc.
B 4. The pleaded stand of the respondent in this regard however is
that though the dealership was declared to be under "A" category, for
which as per the norms, the appellant/Corporation was required to provide
the infrastructure including land, in her case on its persuasion and
insistences, she had to purchase the necessary land and make further
investments to make it fit for the installation by expending more than
C Rs.14 lakhs, against which she was to receive a nominal monthly lease
rent of Rs.1650/-. She also expressed her grievances with regard to the
allotments of the supplies made to her from time to time, resulting in
heavy financial loss to her in business.
5. Be that as it may, this grant of dealership to the respondent
D came to be impeached along with other grants in a public interest litigation
being Writ Petition(C) No.4003of1995 before the High Court of Delhi
by the Center for Public Interest Litigation, in all questioning allotment
of 179 retail outlets (petrol pumps), 155 LPG distributorship and 45 SKO/
LOO dealershjps from January 1993 till 1996 by the Departmental Minister
E under his discretionary quota and upon complete adjudication of the issues
with the participation of the parties involved, the proceeding was disposed
of by the judgment and order dated 29.08.1997. It was held in a sense,
on a scrutiny of the files/records produced before the Court that those
reflected unexplained surge of favourtism in the matter of distribution
of the aforementioned public contracts/distributorships/ dealerships. Vis-
F a-vis the award in favour of the respondent, it was held thus:
"A retail on National Highway Phutahia Chauraha, Teh. & Distt.
Basti, UP, has been allotted to Smt. Shashi Prabha Shukla on her
undated application on the ground that the applicant is unemployed
graduate with keen interest in activities relating to rural development
G and welfare of women and has no regular source of livelihood.
From the application it appears that the applicant is resident of
district Sultanpur, UP. The allotment in her favour has also been
made in a casual manner as is the case in respect of allotments in
other cases noticed above. We were told by the learned counsel
H
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. v. SHASHI 275
PRABHA SHUKLA & ANR. [AMITAVA ROY, J.]
for the applicant that the applicant is president ofYouth Congress. A
Be that as it may, we feel that the allotment in favour of this
applicant is no better than other allotments noticed by us. This
petrol pump is also non operational."
6. On the basis of the findings recorded, which were held as well
to be violative of the relevant guidelines of this Court on this issue and B
found to be prompted by extraneous considerations, the assailed allotments
were directed to be cancelled and the following was ordered:
"(!)Those who have commissioned the Petrol Pumps/LPG/SKO,
Distributorship and are running the same shall stop operating the
Petrol Pumps etc. as the case may be, with effect from I st C
December 1997. The Government of India/concerned Oil
Corooration shall take over the Petrol Pump premises or
distributorship premises from these persons on 1st December 1997.
The concerned Oil Corporation shall have the market value of the
land (if it belongs to the allottee) and/or the construction thereon
determined in a fair and just manner forthwith. D
(2) The right to run the Petrol Pumps and/or Distributorship taken
over by the Government/Oil Corporation concerned shall be
disposed of by way of public auction to be held, if feasible, before
1st December 1997. so that as far as possible, the public may not
suffer or the suffering is for minimal period. The original allottee E
may also participate in the auction. The Petrol Pump Distributorship
shall be allotted to the highest bidder who shall run it on original
terms and conditions. He shall have all the rights in respect of the
land and construction thereon as the original allottee had on the
date of auction, subject, however, to payments as determined by F
the Government/Oil Corporation/concerned authority being made
by the highest bidder. Out of the auction money the value of the
land and construction, if payable to the original allottee and as
determined by the Oil Corporation shall be paid to the original
allottee and the remaining amount remitted to Prime Minister's
Relief Fund. If the successful bidder is the original allottee he G
shall pay the difference between the auction money and the value
of the land and construction as determined by the Oil Corporation.
(3) In case any of the allottee whose allotment has been ordered
to be cancelled and who was running business from land owned
H
276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.
A by him and he. is unwilling to sell part with the land on which the
Petrol Pmyp/Distributorship is being run, he shall intimate this fact
to Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum within two weeks. In such a
case the right to open Petrol Pump/Distributorship, as the case
may be within the close proximity of the existing location, as may
be determined by the Oil Corporation concerned, depending upon
B
the facts and circumstances of each case and the need of the
public, shnll alone be auctioned with a stipulation that the highest
bidder would arrange for the land/superstructure for running the
Petrol Pump/Distributorship. In such an eventually, all connections
hitherto with the distributor whose allotment has been cancelled
c shall be transferred to the establishment of the highest bidder.
(4) The Ministry of Petroleum is directed to file compliance report
by 15th December, 1997."
7. The above quote would yield the following salient features of
the peremptory directives:
D
a) The concerned petrol pumps/LPG/SKO Distributors would
stop operation on and from 01.12.1997.
b) The Government of India/all concerned Corporations would
take over the petrol pump premises or distributorship premises
E onOl.12.1997.
c) The concerned Oil Corporation would have the market value
of the land, if it belongs to the allottee and/or the construction
thereon determined in a fair and just manner forthwith.
d) The right to run the petrol pumps and/or distributorships taken
F over by the Government/all Corporations concerned shall be
disposed of by public auction to be held, if feasible, before
01.12.I997 so that as far as possible, the public may not suffer
or the suffering is for a minimum period.
e) The original allottee be permitted to participate in the auction.
G f) Out of the auction money, the value of the land and construction,
if payable to the original allottee and as determined by the all
Corporations shall be paid to the original allottee and the
remaining amount would be remitted to the Prime Minister's
Relief Fund.
H
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. v. SHASHI 277
PRABHA SHUKLA & ANR. [AMITAVA ROY, J.]
g) If the successful bidder is the original allottee, he shall pay the A
difference between the auction money and the value of the
land and constructions as determined by the Corporation.
h) In case, any allottee whose allotment has been ordered to be
cancelled and who had been running business from the land
owned by him is unwilling to sell/part with the land on which B
the petrol pump/distributorship is being run, he would intimate
this fact to the Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum within two
weeks. In such a case, the right to open petrol pump/
distributorship, as the case may be, within the close proximitv
of the existing location, as may be determined by the Oil
Corporation concerned, depending upon the facts and
c
circumstances of each case and the need of the public shall
alone be auctioned with a stipulation that the highest bidder
would arrange for the land/super structure for running the
petrol pump/distributorship.
i) All connections hitherto with a distributor, whose allotment D
had been cancelled, would be transferred to the establishment
of the highest bidder.
j) The Ministry of Petroleum was required to file compliance
report by 15.12.1997.
E
8. The Corporation accordingly on 13.10.1997, issued a notice to
the respondent intimating her that the dealership agreement between
the parties at the close of the business hours on 30.11.1997 would be
treated as tenninated and that she would not be entitled to operate the
outlet on and from 01.12.1997. It was also conveyed that w.e.f.
01.12.1997, neither she nor her agents/employees and/or representatives F
would be entitled to enter the retail outlet premises. It was clarified that
all these would be without prejudice to any other claim the Corporation
might have against her under the terms of the dealership agreement and
in law.
9. Meanwhile, the respondent had on 23.09.1997 intimated the G
Ministry of Petroleum, Government oflndia, New Delhi that she was
not interested to sell or part with the land on which the petrol pump
distributorship was underway. She also filed SLP (C) No. 19872 of! 997
before this Court challenging the judgment and order dated 29.08.1997,
H
278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.
A which was disposed of on 20.10.1997 leaving her at liberty, as prayed
for, to seek a review before the High Court. Incidentally, the review
petition filed by her was dismissed on 07 .11.1997, whereupon she
unsuccessfully assailed the same in a fresh special leave petition before
this Court, which too was dismissed on 28.11.1997. Thus, the judgment
and order dated 29.08.1997 of the Delhi High Court attained finality and
8
eventually the retail outlet was closed and the facilities were taken over
by the Corporation w.e.f 01.12.1997.
10. The re~pondent No.I however in response to the notice dated
13.10.1997, did call upon the Corporation to return the land in the same
C condition as it had been given to it within 15 days, stating further that
failing which, it would be required to pay rent@ Rs. 50,000/-per month
for use and occupation of the premises and also damages from
23.02.1996.
11. The Corporation thereafter issued an advertisement dated
05 .I 0.1998 to auction the outlet hitherto allotted to the respondent. Certain
D excerpts of the said advertisement being of decisive significance are
extracted hereinbelow:
"Pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble High Court, Delhi by its
order dated 29!!! August, 1997 as clarified/modified by its further
order dated 11.09.1998 in Writ Petition No.4003 of 1995 between
E Centre for Public interest litigation and Union of India, Government
Approved Auctioneers, will auction the right to get appointed as
dealer of a company controlled outlet of Mis. Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. Situated at the place mentioned in the schedule
hereunder on the terms and condition Ltd.
F x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x
6. Terms and conditions covering the terms on which the property
is being auctioned and the conduct of the auction may be obtained
upon payment of Rs.500/- (Rs.Five Hundred only) by demand
G
draft or pay order drawn in favour of Mis. Indian Oil Corporation
Ltd., (M.D.) payable at Allahabad from the Divisional office of
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. at 5m floor, Indira Bhawan, Civil Lines,
Allahabad - 211001 (U.P.) on any working day between 10.30
a.m. and 4.00 p.m. The detailed terms and conditions of auction
H are displayed on the notice Board of the above Divisional office.
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. v. SHASHI 279
PRABHA SHUKLA & ANR. [AMITAVA ROY, J.]
SCHEDULE A
Last date for submission of applications to participate in the bid
22•• October, 1998.
Date of displaying list of eligible bidders: 28th October, 1998
Date of auction/time of auction will be display on the notice board B
at our Divisional Office, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (M.D.),
Slh Floor Indira Bhawan Civil Lines, Allahabad- 21100 I (U.P.)
Venue of Property: NHPhutahia Chauraha, Place: Basti (U.P.)"
12. As the advertisement would reveal, it did contain a categorical
c
reference of the judgment and order dated 29. 08.1997 of the Delhi High
Court, pursuant to which the same had been made to auction the right of
a dealer of the company controlled outlet, situated at the place mentioned
at NH Phutahia Chauraha, Place: Basti (U.P.). Subsequent thereto, by a
corrigendum dated 13 .I 0.1998, the word "property" appearing in Clause D
6 was in essence substituted by the word "dealership", as would be
evident from the extract of the said corrigendum:
"In item 6 of the said notice for auction for retail outlet of Mis.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. situated at NH Phutahia Chauraha,
Basti (U.P.) may be read as follows: E
. The word PROPERTY shall also be substituted by the word
DEALERSHIP. It is further clarified that in case of company
controlled retail outlets only license to operate the dealership will
be substituted with the word DEALERSHIP in the terms and
conditions and its Annexures being sold from our office at F
Allahabad.
Other terms and conditions shall be applicable as per earlier
advertisement."
13. Mentionably, no other record has been laid before this Court
to further elaborate on the terms and conditions of the proposed auction. G
14. To reiterate, the High Court of Delhi in its rendition dated
29.08.1997, vis-a-vis the cases where the allottee, whose allotment had
been cancelled, was unwilling to sell/part with a land on which the petrol
pump/distributorship was being operated, had directed the Corporation
to auction the right to open petrol pump/distributorship within the close H
280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017) 13 S.C.R.
A proximity of the existing location, as may be determined by it, depending
upon the facts and circumstances of each case and the need of the
public with the stipulation that the highest bidder would arrange for the
land/super strµcture for running the petrol pump/distributorship. To put it
differently, in the eventuality where the allottee was not willing to sell/
part with the land on which the petrol pump/distributorship was operational,
B
the Corporation was obligated in law to ensure the following steps in re-
auctioning the right to open petrol pump/distributorship:
(i) Determine a location in the close proximity of the existing
location depending upon the facts and circumstances of each
case and the need of the public.
c
(ii) Such location, as determined on the above factors, alone to
be auctioned with the stipulation that the highest bidder would
arrange for the land/super structures for running the petrol
pump/distributorship.
D 15. The unambiguous precept in the above premise, as contained
in the judgment and order dated 29.08.1997 thus did cast a duty on the
Corporation as a condition precedent for the re-auction, to determine a
location within the close proximity of the existing location, contingent on
the facts and circumstances of each case and the need of the public. In
clear terms therefore the Corporation was required to undertake this
E conscious exercise, it being clear that the location for the re-auction has
to be essentially different from, though in proximity ofthe existing location.
16. The advertisement dated 05.10.1998 along with the
corrigendum however do not disclose the exact location for which the
re-auction was notified, the venue of the site being "NH Bhutahia
F Chauraha, Place: Basti (U.P.)" and wholly identical to the one of the
existing location of the respondent. No attempt has been made to draw
our attention to any initiative taken by the Corporation in compliance of
the directives contained in the judgment and order dated 29.08.1997 of
the Delhi High Court to identify the location as required for the fresh
G auction.
17. The respondent however launched her assailment against the
advertisement dated 05 .I 0 .1998 and the corrigendum dated 13 .10.1998,
this time before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad pleading the
same to be violative of the directions contained in the judgment and
H
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. v. SHASHI 281
PRABHA SHUKLA & ANR. [AMITAVA ROY, J.]
order dated 29.08.1997 and also in violation of her fundamental rights A
under Articles 14, 19( 1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in the first instance by its order dat.ed
29.10.1998 stayed the operation of the auction notices and subsequent
thereto, by its order dated 17.12.1998 directed the Corporation to permit
the respondent to run the dealership of petroleum in the petrol pump of B
Phutahia Chauraha, District Basti until the auction was held and finalized.
Eventually, by the impugned judgment and order, noticing that the proposed
auction had not taken place and that consequently the respondent had
been permitted to run the retail outlet since 1998, directed the Corporation,
in view ofits new policy dated 12.02.2004, to award fresh dealership to
the respondent thereunder and further restrained it from interfering with C
her possession of the petrol pump premises in question.
18. As the impugned judgment would demonstrate, the High Court,
while traversing the relevant facts, took note of the pleaded stand of the
Corporation before it that the lease executed by the respondent vis-a-
vis the land in question did subsist, cancellation of the dealership D
notwithstanding, and therefore she was not entitled for the possession
thereof and that it had the right to induct some other dealer through the
proposed auction to operate the agency from the land of the respondent.
The High Court, while readily dismissing this plea of the Corporation on
the touchstone of Article 300A of the Constitution of India held that ·as·
the dealership was cancelled by the intervention of the Delhi High Court, E
it was not open for the Corporation to assert that the lease deed executed
by her in its favour did subsist thereafter in the eye of law. Having
propounded thus, the High Court observed that because of the non-
removal of the fixtures, machineries and apparatus etc. from the land by
the Corporation and because ofits unlawful stand precipitating the litigation F
before it, the respondent was sought to be denied the benefit of the use
of land in questiou.~or which she was permitted, by the interim order
dated 17.12.1998, to continue witli the dealership till the auction was
held and finalized. Taking note of the fact that no auction had taken
place and that the respondent had been permitted to run the retail outlet
since 1998, the High Court provided that !Tesh dealership be awarded to G
her under the new Policy dated 12.02.2004 of the Corporation, which
contemplated such allotments to land owners and their nominees from
within the family, directly as well as through advertisement for locations
outside government approved marketing plans. The High Court did also
H
282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.
A record that the entitlement of the respondent was also cognizable in
view of the fact that she had been running the present retail outlet without
any complaint for a long period. To reiterate, the High Court thus directed
the Corporation to award fresh dealership under the said policy by
converting the earlier dealership thereunder within one month and also
further restrained it from interfering with the respondent's possession
B
over the petrol pump premises in question. This determination is the
subject matter of scrutiny in the present appeal.
19. Mr. Rao has insistently argued that the dealership of the
respondent having been cancelled by the ruling dated 29.08.1997 of the
Delhi High Court which had attained finality, no direction for fresh
c dealership to her under any circumstances could have been made and
thus the same being patently erroneous, the impugned judgment and
order is liable to be set aside. According to the learned counsel, the
advertisement dated 05 .10.1998 and the corrigendum dated 13. l 0.1998,
if cumulatively read, are in meticulous compliance of the directions to
D that effect as contained in the judgment and order dated 29.08.1997 and
thus the Corporation ought to have been permitted to undertake the
process to its logical end. The learned counsel for the Corporation when
confronted with the omissions in the advertisement and absence of
materials on record to authenticate that the exercise required to be
undertaken by the Corporation for identifying a location in the proximity
E of the existing location was pursued, had no convincing explanation
therefor.
20. Controverting the above, the learned counsel for the respondent
emphatically urged that in the attendant facts and circumstances, though
the judgment and order dated 29.08.1997 of the Delhi High Court had
F attained finality, the operative direction to the Corporation to convert the
existing dealership into a new dealership under the policy dated 12.02.2004
is unassailable and therefore no interference in this appeal is called for.
While imputing that, the Corporation though required in cases of dealership
under category 'A', to provide the whole infrastructure including the
G land, in the case of the respondent, she was asked to make the
arrangement therefor on her own investments, the learned counsel
maintained that the advertisement dated 05.10.1998, even if read with
the corrigendum dated 13. l 0.1998 was apparently not in compliance of
the directions of the Delhi High Court and, therefore could not have
been given effect to. According to him, the auction had thus been rightly
H
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. v. SHASHI 283
PRABHA SHUKLA & ANR. [AMITAVA ROY, J.)
stayed by the Allahabad High Court whereafter the respondent was A
permitted to operate the dealership and eventually taking note of the
prevalent policy dated 12.02.2004, the. Corporation had been rightly
directed to convert her existing dealership to a fresh dealership thereunder.
It was urged as well that the plea of the appellant/Corporation that
cancellation of the dealership notwithstanding, the lease did subsist and
B
that it was entitled in law to hold a fresh auction for the land of the
respondent, was wholly untenable and violative of the mandate ofArticle
300A, as held by the Allahabad High Court.
21. The recorded facts and the rival assertions have received our
due consideration. The genesis of the instant appraisal is indeed traceable
to the allotment of the retail outlet dealership to the respondent on
c
compassionate ground by the Departmental Minister for Petroleum from
his Special Discretionary Quota. As hereinbefore stated, on the
recommendation of the said authority, the Corporation awarded the
dealership. This award along with identically placed allotments, on judicial
scrutiny, were directed to be cancelled in the public interest litigation D
initiated by the Center for Public Interest Litigation before the High
Court of Delhi which, by its judgment and order dated 29.08.1997, on
the ground that those were vitiated not by mere aberrations or
arbitrariness, but by uncontrolled display of favouritism. The rendition
by the High Court of Delhi in the facts and circumstances of the cases
before it, was assuredly to secure administrative probity, transparency, E
objectivity and fairness in the matter of distribution of State largesse and
public contracts. This decision, to reiterate, has become final and binding
on the parties. As noted hereinabove, the Corporation in flagrant defiance
and disregard to the judicial mandate of a Constitutional Court did not
only issue the advertisement dated 05 .I 0.1998 with the corrigendum on F
13.10.1998 without either determining or specifying the exact location
for the site of dealership in the proximity of the earlier site of the
respondent, instead did take up an incomprehensible plea that the
cancellation of the dealership notwithstanding, the lease of the land of
the respondent with it did subsist and that it was entitled in law to induct
the new dealer through the auction process initiated, to the same location. G
The underlying objective in issuing the direction to determine and specify
a location in the proximity of the existing site was with the avowed
purpose of avoiding confrontation and possible litigation and also to
ensure smooth and uninhibited supply of petrol and HSD from the new
outlet at the fresh venue. H
-
284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.
A 22. In the facts of the present case, we subscribe to the view of
the High Court of Allahabad that with the termination of the dealership,
the lease between the parties also stood extinguished and therefore, the
respondent being the owner of the land and she having expressed her
disinclination to sell or part with it, the Corporation by no means could
have contemplated to award the new dealership to a third party on her
B
land. On this clear premise, the failure of the Corporation to act in terms
of the directions containing in the judgment and order of the Delhi High
Court and in contending that the land of the respondent was available
for commissioning the new dealership is patently wrong besides being
contumaciously irreverent and abusively non-compliant thereof. The
c approach and attitude of the Corporation in making the advertisement
dated 05.10.1998 with the corrigendum dated 13.10.1998 and in taking
the apparently untenable stand that notwithstanding the cancellation of
the dealership of the respondent, her land was available for the new
process, is thus visibly militative of the rule of law besides being
destructive of the salutary objective with which the High Court of Delhi
D
had directed cancellation of the dealership/distributorship of the
respondent along with others, being vitiated by the vice of nepotism and
favourtism. This we say, as having regard to the progression of events,
we are left with the impression, in view of the persistent omissions and
commissions of the Corporation, that it is not unlikely that all these might
E have been strategised to eventually benefit the respondent in the long
run. The pleaded stand of the Corporation that despite the cancellation
of the dealership of the respondent, her land was still available, flies in
the face of the determination to the contrary as recorded in the judgment
and order dated 29.08.1997 and only reflects the pre-determined mind
of its functionaries for reasons unknown, though inferable. It is really
F
incomprehensible as to how in spite of such explicit and clear observations
and directions of the High Court of Delhi in its judgment and order dated
29.08.1997, either such a stand could have been taken or the fresh
auction process could have been initiated without undertaking the
initiatives required for specifying/identifying the new location. To reiterate,
G no material has been placed before us to demonstrate to the contrary.
This is more so, as in the advertisement dated 05. l 0.1998, there is a
reference of the judgment and order dated 29 .08.1997 of the Delhi High
Court. A bare perusal of this document would show the venue to be
"NH Phutahia Chauraha place: Basti (UP)", the same as of the dealership
of the respondent.
H
•
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. v. SHASHI 285
PRABHA SHUKLA & ANR. [AMITAVA ROY, J.]
23. It is no longer res integra that a public authority, be a person A
or an administrative body is entrusted with the role to perform for the
benefit of the public and not for private profit and when a prima facie
case of misuse of power is made out, it is open to a court to draw the
inference that unauthorized purposes have been pursued, if the competent
authority fails to adduce any ground supporting the validity of its conduct. · B
24. The following extract from the Halsbury's Laws of England,
Fourth Edition, Vol. I(!) Administrative Law provide thefoundation of
these observations:
"A public authority may be descrihed as a person or
administrative body entrusted with functions to perform for c
the benefit of the public and not for private profit. Not every such
person or body is expressly defined as public authority or body,
and the meaning of a public authority or body may vary according
to the statutory context."
25. In re, the duties, responsibilities and obligations of a public D
authority in a system based on rule oflaw, unfettered discretion or power
is an anathema as every public authority is a trustee of public faith and is
under a duty to hold public property in trust for the benefit of the laity
and not for any individual in particular. The following excerpts from the
Foulkes Ad111i11istrative Law, 7'' Edition at page 174 provide the ·
elaborate insight: E
"A true trust exists when one person, the trustee, is under a duty
to hold the trust property vested in him for the benefit of other
persons, the beneficiaries. The term 'trust' is, however, used in a
much wider sense. We may speak of government being 'entrusted'
with power, of Parliament as the trustee which the nation has F
authorized to act on its behalf.
The purpose of the use of the concept in such contexts is of course
to emphasize that the powers and duties of such bodies should be
exercised not for the advancement of their own interest, but that
of the others, to underline their obligation to others. G
26. The distinction between the power of a public authority and a
private person has since been succinctly brought about in the following
quote from the celebrated work "Administrative Law", Te11th Editio11
by H. W.R. Wade and C.E Forsyth:
H
286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 13 S.C.R.
A "The common theme of all the authorities so far mentioned is that
the notion of absolute or unfettered discretion is rejected. Statutory
power conferred for public purposes is conferred as it were upon
trust not absolutely - that is to say, it can validly be used only in
the right and proper way which parliament when conferring if is
presumed to have intended. In a system based on rule of law,
B
unfettered governmental discretion is contradictory in terms
The powers of public authorities are therefore essentially different
from thosi: of private persons. A man making his will may, subject
to any rights of his dependants, dispose of his property just as he
c may wish. He may act out of malice or a spirit of revenge, but in
law this does not affect his exercise of his power. In the same
way a private person has an absolute power to allow whom he
likes to use his land, to release a debtor, or, where the law permits,
to evict a tenant, regardless of his motives. This is unfettered
D discretion. But a public authority may do none of these things
unless it acts reasonably and in good faith and upon lawful and
relevant grounds ofoublic interest."
27. In Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress vs. State of M.P. '·
this Court was seised as well with the nature of the norms to be adhered
E to for allotment ofland, grant of quotas, permits, licenses etc. by way of
distribution thereof as State largesse. The following observations provide
the guiding comprehension:
65. What needs to be emphasised is that the State and/or its
agencies/instrumentalities cannot give largesse to any person
F according to the sweet will and whims of the political entities and/
or officers of the State. Every action/decision of the State and/or
its agencies/instrumentalities to give largesse or confer benefit
must be founded on a sound, transparent, discernible and well-
defined policy, which shall be made known to the public by
publication in the Official Gazette and other recognised modes of
G publicity and such policy must be implemented/executed by
adopting a non-discriminatory and non-arbitrary method
irrespective of the class or category of persons proposed to be
benefited by the policy. The distribution oflargesse like allotment
'(2011) s sec 29
H
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. v. SHASHI 287
PRABHA SHUKLA & ANR. [AMITAVA ROY, J.]
of land. grant of quota, permit licence. etc. by the State and its A
agencies/instrumentalities should always be done in a fair and
equitable manner and the element of favowitism or nepotism shall
not influence the exercise of discretion, if any, conferred upon the
particular functionary or officer of the State.
66. We may add that there cannot be any policy, much less, a B
rational policy of allotting land on the basis of applications made
by individuals, bodies, organisations or institutions dehors an
invitation or advertisement by the State or its agency/
instrumentality. By entertaining applications made by individuals,
organisations or institutions for allotment of land or for grant of
any other type of largesse the State cannot exclude other eligible C
persons from lodging competing claim. Any allotment of land or
grant of other form of largesse by the State or its agencies/
instrumentalities by !feating the exercise as a private venture is
liable to be treated as arbitrary. discriminatory and an act of
favowitism.and/or nepotism violating the soul of the egualitv clause D
embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution.
28. In his work Administrative Law (6th Edn.) Prof. H.W.R.
Wade highlighted the distinction between powers of public authorities
and those of private persons in the following words:
"The common theme of all the authorities so far mentioned is that E
the notion of absolute or unfettered discretion is rejected. Statutory
power conferred for public purposes is conferred as it were upon
trust, no absolutely-that is to say, it can validly be used only in
the right and proper way which Parliament when conferring it is
presumed to have intended. Although the Crown's lawyers have F
argued in numerous cases that umestricted permissive language
confers unfettered discretion, the truth is that, in a system based
on the rule of law, unfettered governmental discretion is a
contradiction in terms."
29. While rejecting the theory of absolute discretion, Lord Reid
G
observed in Padfield v. Minister ofAgriculture, Fisheries and Food2:
" ... Parliament must have conferred the discretion with the intention
that it should be used to promote the policy and objects of the Act; the
'[ 1968] AC 997
H
288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.
A policy and obj eels of the Act must be determined by constrning the Act
as a whole and constrnction is always a matter of law for the court. In a
matter of this kind it is not possible to draw a hard and fast line, but ifthe
Minister, by reason of his having misconstrned the Act or for any other
reason, so uses his discretion as to thwart or run counter to the policy
and objects of the Act, then our law would be very defective if persons
B
aggrieved were not entitled to the protection of the court."
30. The role of the Government as provider of services and
benefits to the people was noticed in Ramana Dayaram Shelly v.
International Airport Authority of India' in the following words:
c "11. Today the Government in a welfare State, is the regulator
and dispenser of special services and provider of a large number
of benefits, including jobs, contracts, licences, quotas, mineral
rights, etc. The Government pours forth wealth, money, benefits,
services, contracts, quotas and licences. The valuables dispensed
by Government take many forms, but they all share one
D characteristic. They are steadily taking the place of traditional
forms of wealth. These valuables which derive from relationships
to Government are of many kinds. They comprise social security
benefits, cash grants for political sufferers and the whole scheme
of State and local welfare. Then again, thousands of people are
employed in the State and the Central Governments and local
E
authorities. Licences are required before one can engage in many
kinds of businesses or work. The power of giving licences means
power to withhold them and this gives control to the Government
or to the agents of Government on the lives of many people. Many
individuals and many more businesses enjoy largesse in the form
F of government contracts. These contracts often resemble
subsidies. It is virtually impossible to lose money on them and
many enterprises are set up primarily to do business with the
Government. The Government owns and controls hundreds of
acres of public land valuable for mining and other purposes. These
resources are available forutilisation by private corporations and
G
individuals by way oflease or licence. All these mean growth in
the Government largesse and with the increasing magnitude and
range of governmental functions as we move closer to a welfare
State, more and more of our wealth consists of these new forms.
'<I 979) i sec 489
H
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. v. SHASHI 289
PRABHA SHUKLA & ANR. [AMITAVA ROY, J.]
Some of these forms of wealth may be in the nature of legal A
rights but the large majority of them are in the nature of privileges."
31. In the same vein, in Natural Resources Allocation, In Re'-
this Court summed up the long line ofjudicial enunciations on this theme
thus:
"107. From a scrutiny of the trend of decisions it is clearly B
perceivable that the action of the State, whether it relates to
distribution oflargesse, ?:rant of contracts or allotment of land, is
to be tested on the touchstone ofArticle 14 of the Constitution. A
law may not be struck down for being arbitrary without the pointing
out of a constitutional infirmity as McDowell case has· said. c
Therefore, a State action has to be tested for constitutional
infirmities qua Article 14 of the Constitution. The action has to be
fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory, transparent, non-capricious,
unbiased, without favouritism or nepotism, in pursuit of promotion
of healthy competition and equitable treatment. It should conform
to the norms which are rational, informed with reasons and guided D
by public interest, etc. All these principles are inherent in the
fundamental conception of Article 14. This is the mandate of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India."
32. This Court in Center for Public Interest Litigation and others
Vs. Union of India and others', while examining the challenge to the E
allocation of 2G Telecom Services, reflected on the considerations that
should inform the process thereof and observed thus:
95. This Court has repeatedly held that wherever a contract is to
be awarded or a licence is "to be given, the public authority must
adopt a transparent and fair method for making selections so that F
all eligible persons get a fair opportunity of competition. To put it
differently, the State and its agencies/instrumentalities must always
adopt a rational method for disposal of public propertv and no ·
attempt should be made to scuttle the claim of worthy applicants.
When it comes to alienation of scarce natural resources like
G
spectrum, etc. it is the burden of the State to ensure that a non-
discriminatory method is adopted for distribution and alienation,
which would necessarily result in protection of national/public
interest.
'Special Reference No.I of2012
'(2012) 3 sec 2 H
290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.
A 33. Jurisprudentially thus, as could be gleaned from the above
legal enunciations, a public authority in its dealings has to be fair, objective,
non-arbitrary, transparent and non-discriminatory. The discretion vested
in such an authority, which is a concomitant of its power is coupled with
duty and can never be unregulated or unbridled. Any decision or action
contrary to these functional precepts would be at the pain of invalidation
B
thereof. The State and its instrumentalities, be it a public authority, either
as an individual or a collective has to essentially abide by this inalienable
and non-negotiable prescriptions and cannot act in breach of the trust
reposed by the polity and on extraneous considerations. In exercise of
uncontrolled discretion and power, it cannot resort to any act to fritter,
c squander and emasculate any public property, be it by way of State
largesse or contracts etc. Such outrages would clearly be unconstitutional
and extinctive of the rule of law which forms the bedrock of the
constitutional order.
34. Adverting to the facts of the case, to recapitulate, the dealership
D of the respondent had been cancelled being vitiated by favourtism due
to exercise of fanciful discretion of the Departmental Minister, which
was neither approved nor condoned. Nevertheless, the Corporation visibly
did not act in terms of the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi
in initiating the fresh process for auction. This led to the challenge to the
faulty advertisement dated 05.10.1998 and the corrigendum dated
E
13. 10.1998, the operation whereof to start with was stayed and thereafter
the respondent was permitted to continue with the dealership and
eventually she was directed to be awarded a fresh dealership by converting
the existing dealership under its policy dated 12.02.2004. The dealership
of the respondent having been cancelled w.e.f. 01.12.1997, though the
F operation of the auction notice and the corrigendum thereto had been
stayed and she had been allowed to run the outlet, we fail to comprehend
as to how all these could be construed to signify that her dealership did
subsist from the date of the impugned judgment and order. There was
thus no scope for conversion of the existing dealership to a new dealership
as ordered. In addition thereto, we are of the unhesitant opinion that the
G direction to award the new dealership under the prevalent policy dated
12.02.2004, having regard to the backdrop of adjudication undertaken
by the Delhi High Court would amount to perpetuation of the undue
benefit, earlier bestowed on her by a method held to be illegal, dubious,
arbitrary and transgressive of public interest. In other words, the award
H
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. v. SHASHI 291
PRABHA SHUKLA & ANR. [AMITAVA ROY, J.]
of new dealership to the respondent in the prevailing facts and A
circumstances, in our estimate, would amount to allowing the respondent
to enjoy the premium of the illegality and arbitrariness resorted to in
granting her the earlier dealership and reward her as a beneficiary of
unlawful administrative patronage. In our view, the award of new
dealership to the respondent would wholly undermine the purpose of B
cancelling her earlier dealership and annihilate the very objective of
securing transparency, fairness and non-arbitrariness in the matter of
distribution of public contract. In taking the steps for initiating a fresh
process ofauction, to state the least, the defaults andde-relictions of the
Corporation and its functionaries are writ large and deserve to be strongly
deprecated. The omissions and commissions do have the potential of C
suggesting pre-determined perceptions and motivations in aid of the
respondent, resulting in such disagreeable culmination in her favour. The
time lag, according to us, per se cannot purge the vitiation of the award
of dealership originally granted to the respondent, to entitle her to the
relief granted by the impugned judgment and order, by way of a boon for
D
the inexplicable faults and remiss in duty of the functionaries of the
Corporation. In supervening public interest and to uphold the rule oflaw
as well as imperative of administrative fairness, transparency and
objectivity, we are thus not inclined to sustain the impugned judgment
and order. It is, therefore set aside so far as it holds that the respondent
is entitled to a new dealership at her location under the Policy dated E
12.02.2014. We hereby reiterate that the dealership of the respondent
at her present location stands cancelled w.e.f. 01.12.1997. The
Corporation would now take immediate steps to this effect as permissible
in law without fail. The Corporation would also initiate a fresh process
for award of new distributorship/dealership in the area and at a location
F
to be determined by it, if it considers it necessary in public interest strictly
in conformity with law and the constitutionally recognized norms of
transparency, objectivity and fairness.
35. In the singular facts and circumstances, we are greatly
anguished and appalled by the manner in which the Corporation and its
functionaries have acted in the face of the judgment and order dated G
29.08.1997 of the Delhi High Court. We have no hesitation to record
that we are left with the impression that the failures on their part may
not be wholly bona fide. In this view of the matter, we direct the
Corporation to cause an in-house inquiry to be made to fix the liability of
H
292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.
A the errant officials on the issue and decide appropriate action(s) against
them in accordance with law within a period of two months herefrom.
The Corporation after completing this exercise would submit a report
before this Court for further orders, if necessary. We make it clear that
any breach ornon-compliance of this direction would be per se construed
to be a contempt of this Court with penal consequences as contemplated
B
in law. The appeal is allowed. No costs.
Devika Gujral Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "public distribution"Sign in to search