Holding

The Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas has substantially complied with the Court's directions, rendering the writ petition unnecessary and leading to its disposal.

Summary

The petitioner, Jyotsna Dwivedi, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking a mandamus directing the Union of India to promptly fulfil welfare packages promised to widows of Kargil war martyrs. The Supreme Court issued several directions, after which the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas filed an additional affidavit detailing steps taken, including meetings with state authorities and the commissioning of pending allotments. The affidavit showed that out of 492 recommended cases, only nine remained pending, with two of those already before the Delhi High Court. The Court held that the Ministry had substantially complied with its obligations, and therefore there was no basis to continue the writ petition. Consequently, the petition was disposed of, and the parties were directed to approach the High Court for the early disposal of the remaining cases.

Issues considered

Whether the Union of India has complied with its promise to provide welfare packages to the widows of Kargil war martyrs.
Whether a writ of mandamus under Article 32 is appropriate to compel the Union to complete the allotments.
Whether the Supreme Court should continue to entertain the writ petition in view of the Ministry's compliance.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Art.32

Subjects

Article 32writ of mandamuswidows of martyrsKargil wargovernment compliancewelfare packagesSupreme Courtpetition dismissed

Judgment

.'

NOTSNA DWIVEDI A
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

FEBRUARY 19, 2007

[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] B

Constitution of India, 1950:
...... )
Art.32-Writ of Mandamus-Seeking direction to the respondents to
ensure that promises of 'welfare packages' (allotments) made to widows of C
martyrs of Kargil war are fulfilled promptly-Respondents filed affidavit
explaining steps taken to dispose of pending cases of allotment-Jn view of
the affidavit, writ petition disposed of-Matters pending before High Court-
. Parties directed to approach High Court for early disposal of pending cases.

The petitioner filed the Writ Petition under Article 32 of the D
Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the
respondents to ensure that promise of welfare packages made to the widows
of the martyrs of the Kargil war are fulfilled promptly.

During the pendency of the writ petition, several orders were passed by E
this Court issuing various directions.

Pursuant to directions, the Union oflndia (Ministry of Petroleum and
Natural Gas) had filed an additional affidavit explaining the steps taken to
dispose of the pending cases for allotment. It was also stated therein that the
regular meetings were held by the officials of the Ministry and the Oil p
Marketing Companies in the presence of the representatives of the
Directorate General Resettlement, with the allottees, State Administration
and District Authorities of the States in the month of June 2006 to clear the
bottlenecks in the commissioning of the pending cases. The answering
respondent, by letter dated 30.8.2006, has also directed the Oil Marketing
Companies to endeavour to commission all the pending cases by 31.12.2006. G

Disposing of the Writ Petition in view of the Additional Affidavit, the
Court

807 H
808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R.

A HELD: The Ministry has substantially complied with the directions
issued by this Court. except 9 pending cases, out of which 2 cases, are pending
in the High Court, Likewise, another writ petition filed by the Contractors is
also pending before the High Court. The parties are directed to approach the
High Court for an early disposal of the pending cases. !Paras 7, 8)
1809-G, H; 810-A)
B
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No. 465 of2004.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)

Jyotsna Dwivedi, Petitioner-In-Person.
c G.E. Vahanvati, S.G., T.S. Doabia, Shobha Dikshit, A.S. Rawat, Genl., H.
~aruah, Anil Katiyar, P. Parmeshwaran, Manpreet Singh Doabia, Pradeep
Mishra, Sandeep Singh and J.K. Bhatia for the Respondents.

Thi: Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. I. Heard Ms. Jyotsna Dwivedi, Petitioner
in person and Mr. Goolam E. Vahanvati, Learned Solicitor General oflndia, Mr.
T.S. Doabia, learned Senior Counsel, Mrs. Shobha Dikshit, learned Senior
Counsel and Mr. Avatar Singh Rawat, learned counsel for the respondents.

E
2. The Writ Petition was filed under Articie 32 of the Constitution of
Jndia for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents
to ensure that the promise of welfare packages made to the widows of the
martyars of the Kargil war are fulfilled promptly.

F 3. During the pendency of the writ petition, several orders were passed
by this Court issuing various directions. Several opportunities were given to
the parties. At the request of the learned counsel for the States, permission
was granted to file affidavits.

4. Pursuant to our directions, the Union of India (Ministry of Petroleum
G and Natural Gas) has filed an additional affidavit explaining the steps taken
to dispose of the pending cases for allotment including 22 cases where land
is to be identified. The Additional Affidavit is filed in pursuance to the
directions issued by this Court. The status of cases as on 31.12.2006 under
the Special Scheme "Operation Vijay" Kargil has been mentioned in the
H Affidavit. The total 492 cases were recommended for grant of the benefit
JYOTSNA DWIVEDI v. U.0.1. [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 809
under the Scheme. 47 cases were advised by the Directorate General of A
Resettlement to be kept in abeyance, since the parties are not interested.
Thus, there is 445 effective recommendations. The break-up figure has also
been clearly mentioned in the tabulated statement.

5. It is also further stated that as on 31.12.2006 there are only 9 cases
pending for commissioning, and out of these, 5 are retail outlet cases and 4 B
are LPG distributorships cases and details of the 9 pending cases are also
.,• mentioned in the tabulated statement. The prime reason for the pendency of
the cases had been the non-availability of commercially viable suitable land
for the retail outlets or LPG distributorships at the location of choice of the
allottee concerned. To expedite the commissioning in the pending cases, the C
answering respondent has from time to time written to the Chief Secretaries
of the State concerned wherein land was not available or where the approvals
from where authorities were pending, requesting for a personal intervention
and expediting needful action in the matter. Copies of these letters have also
been annexed along with Additional Affidavit. The Minister (Petroleum &
Natural Gas) has also written to the Chief Ministers of the State concerned D
in this regard and copies of those letters have also been annexed along with
the Affidavit.

6. In cases, where the approval from the National Highway Authorities
is required, the Minister has also written to the Minister, Ministry of Road,
Transport and Highways requesting for a personal intervention and expediting E
needful action in the matter. Copies of these letters have also been filed and
marked as annexures to the Affidavit. It is also stated that the regular meetings
were held by the officials of the Ministry and the Oil Marketing Companies
in presence of the representatives of the Directorate General Resettlement, ·
with the allottees, State Administration and District Authorities of the States p
concerned in the month of June, 2006 to clear the bottlenecks in the
commissioning of the pending cases. The answering respondent, by letter
dated 30.8.2006, has also directed the Oil Marketing Companies to endeavour
to commission all the pending cases by 31.12.2006.

7. It is, thus, seen that the Ministry has substantially complied with the G
directions issued by this Court. Except 9 pending cases, out of which 2 cases,
bearing W.P. No.18289-91 of 2006, are pending in the High Court of Delhi.
Likewise, another writ petition filed by the Contractors in W.P. 190192-20/2006
is also pending before the High Court of Delhi. We direct the parties to
H
810 SUPREME. COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R.
___ .l -

A approach
'
the High Court for an early disposal of the pending cases.
.

8. In view of the Additional Affidavit filed, there is no need to keep the
instant Writ Petition No.465 of 2004 pending in this Court. Accordingly, the
writ petition is disposed of.

B 9. No orders on application for impleadment is now necessary.

I0. I.As., applications for directions, are also disposed of.

11. No costs.

C D.G. Writ Petition disposed of.

.•