Holding

The phrase "other consideration" is not ejusdem generis with political linkage, the Committee was within its jurisdiction to examine all extraneous factors, and the doctrine of estoppel does not apply; thus the cancellation of non‑meritorious allotments stands.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the cancellation of 413 petroleum retail, LPG and SKO‑LDO allotments that were alleged to have been made on the basis of political patronage. The Court set aside the Central Government's blanket cancellation order, appointed a Committee to investigate each case, and directed it to consider both political linkage and any other extraneous considerations. The petitioners challenged the Committee's jurisdiction, arguing that it could only examine political patronage and that the phrase "other consideration" should be read ejusdem generis, and also invoked the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The Court held that "other consideration" is not limited to political influence, that the Committee was empowered to look at all relevant factors, and that estoppel does not apply where the allotment itself is vitiated. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the interim applications, upheld the Committee’s findings of non‑merit in the majority of cases, and allowed relief only in a few borderline instances.

Issues considered

The scope of the Committee's authority: whether it could consider factors beyond political patronage/linkage.
Interpretation of the phrase "other consideration" in the Court's directions – ejusdem generis or broader.
Whether the doctrine of promissory/equitable estoppel can protect allottees whose allotments were cancelled.
Whether the Central Government's cancellation order violated principles of natural justice.
Whether the Supreme Court should set aside the cancellation order and the Committee's report.

Subjects

political patronageallotmentpetroleum retail outletsLPG distributorshipcommittee jurisdictionejusdem generisnatural justicepromissory estoppeladministrative law

Judgment

.. .;.
MUKUND SWARUP MISHRA A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JANUARY 12, 2007

[Y .K. SABHARWAL, CJI, C.K. THAKKER AND B
R.V. RAVEENDRAN, JJ.]

--;. Judgment/Order -Directions of Court-Interpretation of-Allotment
of retails outlets ofpetroleum products, LPG distributorship and SKO-LDO
dealership allegedly influenced by political patronage/linkage-Allotments
• cancelled by Central Government-Challenge by aggrieved allottees-
c
Supreme Court set aside order of Central Government and appointed a
Committee to examine whether allotment was on basis of political
patronage/linkage or other extraneous considerations-Committee's report
challenged on the ground that it exceeded its powers in taking into
account extraneous matters other than political linkage/paironage-Held, D
__ -t phrase 'other consideration' is not ejusdem generis with political linkage/
connection!parironage and takes within its sweep all considerations other
than merit of the case-Committee considered the question on merits-
Report of Committee cannot be said to be without power, authority or
jurisdiction. E
Allegations were made that the retail outlets of the petroleum products,
LPG distributorship and SKO-LDO dealership were allotted on the basis
of political patronage/linkage. The alleged tainted cases of allotment were
reviewed by the then Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister, Minister
/'
of Petroleum and Natural Gas and the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs F
also participated in the review process. Subsequently, a formal order was
•
issued by the Central Gnvernment cancelling all the allotments. The said
order was challenged by aggrieved allottees by instituting Writ petitions
in several High Courts. Transfer petitions were filed in this Court and this
Court, in Order Lal Bajaj disposed of all the petitions by setting aside the G
cancellation order passed by the Central Government and by appointing a
Committee comprising of a retired Judge of Supreme Court and a retired
Judge of the Delhi High Court, to examine the cases of allotment. The .
> Committee submitted its report which has been challenged in the present
interim applications.
H
825
826 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] I S.C.R.

A It was contended before this Court that the Committee had limited
power to consider whether the allotment was made due to political linkage
and was tainted and nothing more and that the direction of this Court to
the Committee to consider 'other extraneous matters' must be construed
ejusdem generies i.e. political influence or of the like nature but the
Committee illegally and unauthorisedly exceeded its jurisdiction by
B considering several other factors, such as, whether the applicants were
eligible, whether the guidelines were followed in the grant of allotment and
whether extraneous considerations weighed with the Board in giving
marks to applicants. The applicants contended that the doctrine of
equitable I promissory estoppel would also get attracted in all these cases.
c Disposing of the interim applications, the Court

HELD : I.I. Reading Onkar Lal Bajaj*, in its entirety and the
directions issued by this Court, it cannot be said that the Court was
considering allotment only on the basis of political linkage/patronage. It is
D clear that the proceedings had been initiated because of news reports and
this Court was called upon to consider the action taken by the Central
Government of cancellation of all allotments. This Court, keeping in view
the circumstances in their entirety, set aside the order as being violative
of principles of natural justice and fair play and directed the Committee to
E consider certain cases as to whether allotment had been made on the basis
of political patronage/linkage or other extraneous considerations weighed
with the Board in making orders of allotment. [Para 20) [837-F-H, 838-A]

1.2. The phrase 'other consideration' cannot be read ejusdem generis
with political linkage/patronage. The expression 'other consideration' would
F take within its sweep all considerations other than merit of the case.
Ultimately, the direction of this Court was not a statute nor it can be
considered as an enactment It, therefore, 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
G matters. In fact, the direction of this Court was to consider extraneous
considerations, if any, in allotment and if so, to pass an appropriate order and
to report on those aspects. [Paras 22 & 23) [838-D-E)

Onkar Lal Bajaj & Others v. Union ofIndia & Another, (2003) 2 SCC
673, referred to
H
MUKUND SWARUP MISHRA v. U.0.1. 827

... 2. The argument that the doctrine of promissory or equitable estoppel A
would apply is also not acceptable. May be that 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 protected by interim order
B
passed by this Court. Even after the decision in Onkar Lal Bajaj, interim
order was continued. In the circumstances, for more than four years
interim order is in favour of allottees even though the allotment is found to
be illegal or contrary to law. Therefore, it is not open to the allottees whose
allotments have been found to be vitiated to plead equity. C
[Para 24] [838-G-H, 839-A]

3. The Committee had considered in detail individual cases and
submitted the report. This Court, therefore, would consider a complaint of
an allottee who can successifully put forward his complaint and may satisfy
this Court that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding of D
the Committee that the allotment was not on merits was not correct. But
only in those individual cases, the Court would consider and may grant
relief to such applications. It, however, cannot be said that the report of the
Committee was without power, authority or jurisdiction or was uncalled for
an liable to be ignored. [Para 25] [839-B-C] E
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Transferred Case (Civil) No. 100 of
2002.

Transferred Case (Civil) No. 100 of2002.

WITH F
T.C.(C) Nos. 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108 of 2002, S.L.P. (C)
Nos. 1394 of2003, 11556, 11568, 16261 of2002 and T.C (C) No. 57 of2006.

Gopal Subramanam, ASG, (A.C.), Manjit Singh, AAG, Ram Jethmalani,
Vinayak Dixit, M.L. Verma, Mukul Rohtagi, Vijay Hansaria, Uday U. Lalit, G
M.N. Krishnamaqi, Ravindra Shrivastava, Mahendra Anand, Jawahar Lal
Gupta, M.N. Rao, Mahabir Singh, P. Vishwanatha Shetty, R.P. Bansal, S.K.
Kashote, Rajiv Shakdhar, Dinesh Dwivedi, V.A. Mohta, Sunil Kumar, S.K.
Dubey, J. Dhankar, Sr. Advs., Raghenth Basant, Rajshekhar Rao, Nikhil
Nayyar (A.C.), Dayan Krishnan, (A.C.), Sudhir Kulshreshtha, A.P. Mayee,
H
828 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 1 S.C.R

A Ravindra K. Adsure, Sujatt-Ullah Khan, Ms. Asha Jain Madan, Mukesh Jain,
Ambar Jain, Manish Pitale, Chander Shekhar Ashri; D.M. Nargolkar, Ms.
Aishwarya Bhati, K.S. Bhati, Ajay Majithia, Rajesh Kumar, Dr. Kailash
Chand, H.K. Puri, Maninder Singh, Ms. Pratibha M. Singh, Gaurav Sharma,
Sumeet Bhatia, K.K. Gupta, Sanjay V. Kharde, Ms. Chandan Ramamurthi,
Annam D.N. Rao, G. Umapathy, Rakesh K. Sharma, K.K. Senthilvelan, P.V.
B Yogeshwaran, D.N. Goburdhun, Ms. Pinky Anand, Ms. Geeta Luthra, S.K.
Kulkarni, M. Gireesh Kumar, Vijay Kumar, Ms. Vandana Sehgal, Ghanshyam,
Satya Mittal, Devender Singh, U. Hazarika, Satya Mitra, Ms. Sumita Hazarika,
M.D. Adkar, Vishwajit Singh, Sanjay Sarin, Ms. Gagandeep, Ms. Manjusha
Wadhwa, Ms. Somina S., Ashok Mathl]I', Manoj Swarup, Ajay Gupta, Uday
c Gupta, A.K. Behera, Amit Kumar, P. Chandra, S.K. Pandey, A.T.M. Sampath,
Sanjay Kapur, Ms. Shubra Kapur, Ms. Aani Singh, Srenik Singhvi, Rauf
Rahim, Mohd. Faisal, Sudhanshu Choudhuri, Naresh Kumar, P.K. Jain,
Anuvrat Sharma, Sanjay Kumar Singh, M.P. Shorawala, Ms. Vibha Datta
Makhija, Kuna! Verma, Arjun, Ms. Philemon Nongbari, B.S. Banthia, Naveen
Sharma, C. Mukund, Ms. Neeraj, Shashank, Bijoy Kumar Jain, Amit Pawan,
D S. Chandra Shekhar, Arun K. Sinha, Mukesh Kumar Sinha, Ajay Choudhary,
Rajat Mahajan, Nimish Gupta, Ms. Karola Jain, Sanjay Visen, Vinod Kumar
Rai, T.V. George, Bharat Singh, U.S. Prasad, Nidhesh Gupta, Vinod Shukla,
Deepak Goel, Ms. S. Janani, Sushi! Kumar Jain, Puneet Jain, H.D. Thanvi,
Ms. Pratibha Jain, Sarad Singhania, Piyush Jain, Manoj Swamp, Ms. Lalita
E Kohli, Anubhav Kumar(for Mis. Manoj Swarup & Co.), Krishnan Venugopal,
Ms. Sonia Mathur, Shiv K. Goyal, Raj Kamal, P.K. Jain, Ms. Hemantika Wahi,
Ms. Shivangi, Anupam Lal Das, Amit Sharma, Y .P. Mahajan, P. Parmeswaran,
P. Venkat Reddy, C.S.N. Mohan Rao, Rakesh Dahiya, Nikhil Jain, Ms. Preeti
Singh, Devendra Singh, Imtiaz Ahmed, Ms. Naghma Imtiaz, Abhishek Anand
(for Mis. Enquity Lex Associates), Barun Kumar Sinha, Ms. Pratibha Sinha,
F Ms. Parminder Kaur, Saurabh Kirpal, Anupam K. Sanghi, Ms. Kavita Wadia,
S.K.Kulkami, Kh. Nobin Singh, Vijay Kumar, R. Santhan Krishnan, Ms. K.
Radha Rani, Praveen Pandey, P. Vijay Kumar, D. Mahesh Babu, Ajay K.
Agrawal, Ms. Alka Aggrwal, Ms. Anamika Agrawal, A.P. Sahay, Anshuman
Ashok, Kuldip Singh, Sudhir Kumar Gupta, Anurag Pandey, Mihir Kumar
G Chaudhary, Anil K. Chopra, Ujjwal Banerjee, S.K. Puri, Ms. Priya Puri, V.M.
Chauhan, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Lakshmi Raman Singh, P.H. Parekh, Sameer
Parekh, E.R. Kumar, Ms. Sonali Basu Parekh, Sanand Ramakrishnan, Rajeev
Mishra, Ms. Shakun Sharma, Ms. Lata Krishnamurthi, Ms. P.R. Mala, Ms.
Jina Mullick Das, Ms. Rukhmini Bobde (for Mis. P.H. Parekh & Co.),
R.K.Maheshwari, Bhupender Yadav, R.C. Kohli, Alok Kumar, Ms. Asha
H
MUKUNDSWARUPMISHRAv. U.0.1.[THAKKER,J.] 829

Kochar, Ms. Babita Yadav, R.S. Suri, Ms. Suruchi Suri, Puneet Bali, Hittan A
Nehra, S.S. Jauhar, P. Jauhar, S.N. Bhat, D.M. Nargolkar, Goodwill Indeevar,
P.S. Singh, Subhash Chandra, N.P. Singh, Vinod Sharma, Vikas Mahajan,
Jitender Tripathi, Irshad Ahmad, Shivaji M. Jadhav, Munendra Kumar Singh,
A.K. Singh, S.K. Tripathi, Shiv Prakash Pandey, Shiv Sagar Tiwari, Pranab
Kumar Mullick, Krishan Venugopal, Prasad Vijayakumar, Siddharth Singh, A.
Raghunath, Rajesh Mahale, Vipin Nair, P.B. Suresh (for Mis. Temple Law B
Firm), Dr. Sushi! Balwada, Praneet Ranjan, Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Vishal Kumar,
-; Ashok Kumar Gupta, Farrukh Rasheed, Arvind Kumar, Ms. Laxmi Arvind,.
Ms. Poonam Prasad, Ms. Madhurima Tatia Indra Makwana, Mukesh Verma,
Manish Shanker, M.R. Shamshad, Yash Pal, Dhingra, Pravesh Thakur, Pramit
Saxena, Ms. Anuradha Rustagi, S.V. Deshpande, Dipak Kumar Jena, Ms. c
Minakshi Jena, Pabitra Kumar Biswal, Harikesh Singh, Nitin S. Tambwekar,
B.S. Sai, K. Rajeev, T.N. Singh, Rohit Pandey, Umang Tripathi, D.K. Garg,
Ranbir Yadav, Avadh Kaushik, S.K. Srivastava, Dr. S.K. Verma, A. Verma,
Anil S. Singh, Atul Kumar, Ms. Anita Kanungo, Sanjeev Malhotra, Ms.
Anita Kanungo, Himanshu Shekhar, K.V. Mohan, Anil Kumar Tandale,
Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay, Rajiv Talwar, Debasis Misra, Barun K. D
Sinha, Ms. Pratibha Sinha, B.K. Satija, Pramod Dayal, Rameshwar Prasad
Goyal, Amo! Chitale, Ms. Pragya Singh Baghel, Ms. RekhaPalli, T. Raja, Ms.
D. Bharati Reddy, Sanjay Parikh, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, A.N. Singh, Jitin
Sahni, Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Vinay Kumar Garg,
Shiva Kumar Sinha, Shrish Kumar Misra, Ajit Kumar Singh, K.K. Mohan, E
Jitendra Mohan Sharma, K.K. Rai, Prakash Shrivastava, Ms. Pradipti
Shrivastava, Miten Mahapatra, C.N. Sree Kumar, Sanjay Jain, Mukesh K.
Giri, Sudhir Nandrajog, Satyajit A. Desai, Ms. Anagha S. Desai, Amol N.
Suryawanshi, Vikram Saluja, Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, R.S. Lambat, Ms.
Naresh Bakshi, Tushar Bakshi, V.G. Pragasam, S. Vallinayagam, Vikas Mehta,
C. Mukund, Shashank Sharma, Bijoy Kumar Jain, Parijat Sinha, Snehasish F
·• Mukherjee, Debapriya Samanta, S.C. Ghosh, Manish Pitale, Chander Shekhar
Ashri, Ashok Kumar Singh, Naresh Kumar Gaur, Sapan Biswajit Meitel, Ms.
Asha Jain Madan, Mukesh Jain, Ambar Jain, B.K. Sinha and Pawan, for the
appearing parties and Ms. Sarla Chandra, In-person.
G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

C.K. THAKKER, J. : Interim applications have been filed by the
applicants who are aggrieved by the Report made by a Committee appointed
by this Court while dealing with and deciding transferred cases in Onkar Lal
Bajaj & Others v. Union of India & Another, [2003] 2 SCC 673. H
830 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 1 S.C.R

A 2. It may be stated that a news item appeared in Indian Express dated
August 2, 2002 alleging political patronaze in allotment of retail outlets of
petroleum products, LPG distributorship and SKO-LDO dealership. Between
August 2 and August 5, 2002, certain names were published by the said
newspaper and it was stated that without following guidelines, dealers/
distributors were appointed on the basis of political patronaze/linkage. A
B question was also raised in Parliament. Consequent upon criticism by the
Press and Parliament, cases were reviewed on August 5, 2002 by the then
Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Petroleum & Natural
Gas and Minister of Parliamentary Affairs also participated in the review
process. In view of the controversy in allotment, the Prime Minister directed
c the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas to cancel all allotments made with
effect from January, 2000 till date. Press release was issued by the Press
Information Bureau and a formal order was issued by the Government of
India, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas on August 9, 2002 cancelling all
allotments.

D 3. The said order was challenged by aggrieved allottees by instituting
writ petitions in several High Courts. Transfer petitions were filed in this
Court and this Court, in Onkar Lal Bajaj disposed of all the petitions by
setting aside the order dated August 9, 2002 passed by the Central
Government and by appointing a Committee comprising of Hon'ble Mr.
Justice S.C. Agrawal, a retired Judge of this Court and Hon'ble Mr. Justice
E
P .K. Bahri, a retired Judge of the High Court of Delhi, to examine 413 cases
of allotment. This Court requested the Committee to submit its report within
a period of three months. The said decision dated December 20, 2002 is
reported in (2003) 2 SCC 673. The directions which were issued by this Court
were as under:
F
I. We appoint a Committee comprising of Mr. Justice S.C. -\·
Agrawal, a retired Judge of this Court and Mr. Justice P.K.
Bahri, a retired judge of Delhi High Court, to examine the
aforesaid 413 cases. We request the Committee to submit the
report to this Court within a period of three months.
G "-·
II. The Committee would device its own procedure for undertaking
the examination of these cases. If considered necessary, the
Committee may appoint any person to assist it.

III. We direct the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas,
H
...
MUKUND SWARUP MISHRA v. U.O.I. [THAKKER, J.] 831

Goverrunent of India and the four oil companies to render full, A
complete and meaningful assistance and cooperation to the
Committee. The relevant records are directed to be produced
before the Committee within five days.

IV. We direct the Ministry to appoint a nodal officer not below
the rank of a Joint Secretary for effective working of the B
Committee.

-; v. The Central Government, State Government/Union Territories
and all others are directed to render such assistance to the
Committee as may be directed by it.
c
VI. The oil companies are directed to provide as per Committee's
directions, the requisite infrastructure, staff, transport and
make necessary arrangements, whenever so directed, for travel,
stay, payments and other facilities etc.

VII. In respect of any case if the Committee, on preliminary D
examination of the facts and records, forms an opinion that
the allotment was made on merits and not as a result of
political connections or patronage or other extraneous
considerations, it would be open to the Committee not to
proceed with probe in detail. E
4. During the pendency of the matters before the Committee, this Court
continued interim order granted earlier. Pursuant to the directions of this
Court, the Committee commenced its proceedings by examining the relevant
records relating to allotment. Notices were issued, replies were ·;SQUg_ht in
the form of affidavits, letters or other applications/representations. The F
Committee also afforded an opportunity of making oral submissions to the
allottees. Oral hearing was also afforded to other applicants on the panel
whose applications were rejected or who were not granted allotment. In
several cases, allottees or other applicants were represented by their counsel
to whom opportunity of hearing was extended. Hearings were held at Delhi
and at other places mentioned in the report. The Committee, thereafter,
G
considered the relevant materials keeping in view the salient features of the
guidelines laid down by the Government of India and submitted its detailed
report.

5. The Committee considered the background of the case, eligibility H
832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 1 S.C.R

·A criteria, educational qualifications, income of the applicants and other
relevant considerations in the light of guidelines for allotment.

6. Referring to the observations in Onkar Lal Bajaj by this Court, the
Committee observed that it was required to consider whether the alleged
tainted allotments were made on merits or as a matter of political connection
B or patronaze or on any other 'extraneous considerations'. On behalf of the
allottees, it had been urged that mere fact that a person was politically
connected should not disentitle him/her from allotment if he/she is otherwise
found meritorious by the DSB and the political connection of a person
should not stand in the way of his/her application being considered on
c merits.

7. The Committee, in our opinion, rightly stated;

"The correctness of this proposition cannot be disputed. Merely
because a person has a political connection should not operate as
D a handicap in his/her being considered for allotment on his/her own
merits. But if from other surrounding circumstances, it is apparent
that the political connection of an applicant has weighed in the
matter of consideration of the application by the DSB and an
allotment has been made in his favour, then such an allotment
would be open to challenge on the ground that it is not made on
E merits but on extraneous considerations".

8. The Committee again correctly observed that an inference that the
political connections of an applicant have influenced the selection and that
such selection is based on extraneous considerations could be drawn under
F the following circumstances;

(i) The applicant was selected even though he did not fulfill the -<,·
requisite conditions for eligibility as prescribed in the
Guidelines.

G (ii) The requirements of the Guidelines were not adhered to in the
process of selection.

(iii) In the matter of award of marks for the purpose of evaluation
of the merits of an allottee vis-a-vis other applicants, the
Chairman or any member of the DSB has displayed an attitude
MUKUND SWARUP MISHRA v. U.O.I. [THAKKER, J.] 833

of upgrading the allottee and downgrading other more or A
equally meritorious applicants.

9. The Committee was also of the view that an allottee who had given
a wrong information or had concealed a material fact in his/her application
or any document filed therewith, could not be permitted to avail the
allotment in his/her favour. The Committee then stated that as regards
B
evaluation of the merits under the guidelines by DSB, the marks were to be
awarded by the Chairman and Members of the DSB under the following
norms:

(a) Personality, Business ability and Salesmanship c
(b) Capability to arrange finances

(c) Educational qualifications and general level of intelligence.

(d) Capability to provide infrastructure and facilities (land, godown,
D
showroom etc.)

(e) General assessment.

I 0. The Committee noticed that total numher of marks that had been E
earmarked for each Member of the DSB was 100. The total number of marks
earmarked for Chairman was also I 00 initially but subsequently they were
increased to 200. Thus, the maximum marks earmarked for the Chairman of
DSB were equal to the maximum marks earmarked for the other two members
of the DSB. The Committee, hence, observed; "In the matter of evaluation F
of merit, the marks awarded by the Chairman could, therefore, prove to be
decisive in the selection process". The Committee further stated that 'it was
also found by the Committee, in many ca3es, even though the other two
members of the DSB had awarded more marks to the applicant/applicants
placed at Nos. 2 and/or 3 in the merit panel, the applicant at No. l was
selected for allotment on the basis of very higher number of marks awarded G
by the Chairman of DSB. The situation became further aggravated when the
DSB was composed of the Chairman and one member only because then,
-) out of total number of300 marks, the Chairman had 200 marks and the other
member had only 100 marks. Even though the member had rated applicant/
applicants at Nos. 2 and/or 3 on the merit panel better than the applicant H
834 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] l S.C.R

A at No.l, the applicant at No. l was selected on the basis of higher number
of marks awarded by the Chairman. This shows that the Chairman of the
DSB, if so inclined, could play a crucial role in the selection of the candidate
for allotment. The evaluation and award of marks by the Chairman of the
DSB, was, therefore, of considerable significance.

B 11. The Committee also regretfully noted that in a large number of
cases, allegations have been made regarding political linkage and bias of the
Chairman and in some cases, allegations of even corruption had been made
against the Chairman. Since the Committee did not have any machinery to
verify the veracity of those allegations, it had rested the conclusions on the
c evaluation and award of marks by the Chairman and Members of the DSB.

12. In the matter of evaluation of the merits of the candidates, the
Committee was of the view that an inference about the marking being
arbitrary could be drawn in the following situations;

D (i) There is a wide variation in the marks awarded by the Chairman and
the marks awarded by the otver member/members of the DSB to the ,\-·- ......
three applicants who ·have been placed on the merit panel.
f\
·~

(ii) Unusually high marks have been awarded by the Chairman/Members
E of the DSB to an applicant as compared to other applicants on the merit
panel.

(iii) Higher number of marks have been awarded to a particular applicant
under norms (a), (c), (c) or (d) even though as per the objective factors
F relating such norms, another applicant has shown better merit and ...
suitability. 1-

13. The Committee scrutinized 409 cases of alleged tainted allotments
in the States ofHimachal Pradesh, Haryana, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar,
Jharkhand, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Chattisgarh, Gujarat, Maharashtra,
G Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. Out of 409 cases examined, the
Committee was of the view that in 297 allotments, the selection could not
be said to have been made on merits. The allottees either did not fulfil the
eligibility requirements or had incurred disqualification on account of
suppression/concealruent of material information relating to their eligibility
H for consideration or other extraneous considerations weighed with the Board
MUKUNDSWARUPMISHRAv. U.0.I. [THAKKER,J.] 835

in granting such allotments. In other words, almost 73 per cent of tainted A
allotments examined by the Committee were found to be improper. The
Committee, therefore, opined the need for evolving transparent and objective
criteria/procedure.

14. Being aggrieved by the findings of the Committee holding certain
allotments being not made on merits and therefore were not sustainable, the
B
applicants have approached this Court by filing interim applications.
-"
.j 15. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicants as also Mr.
Gopal Subramaniam, learned amicus curiae. On behalf of the applicants, it
was contended that the Committee went beyond the directions issued by c
this Court and in observing that the allotment was not done in accordance
with the guidelines and hence, could not be held to be legal or proper. It
was submitted that so far as the directions of this Court are concerned, they
related to allotment due to political patronage/linkage/connection. The
Committee appointed by this Court, therefore, had limited power to consider
D

- +
whether the allotment was made due to political linkage or patronage and
was tainted and nothing more. It was also submitted that the main
consideration before this Court was press reports in Indian Express which
was the basis and foundation of inquiring into the matters and keeping in
view the allegations in those reports, the orders were passed by this Court.
It was also submitted that the direction of this Court to consider 'other E
extraneous matters' must be construed ejusdem generis i.e. political influence
or of the like nature. The Committee illegally and unauthorisedly exceeded
its jurisdiction by considering several other factors, such as, whether the
applicants were eligible, whether the guidelines were followed in the grant
.. of allotment and whether extraneous considerations weighed with the Board
in giving marks to applicants. Since it was not within the power of the
F
Committee, the findings recorded, conclusions arrived at and observations
made by the Committee deserve interference by this Court by setting aside
the direction to cancel allotments made in favour of applicants/allottees. It
was also submitted that no adequate opportunity had been afforded by the
Committee inasmuch as in almost all notices issued to the allottees, the G
allegation was that the allotment had been made due to political patronage/
linkage and it was only at the time of hearing that certain other defects or
~. matters came up for consideration by the Committee and impugned orders
t
were made observing that either the allottees were not eligible, or the marks
given to them were arbitrary, or there was suppression of fact on the part H
-
836 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) l S.C.R.

A of applicants. Virtually, thus, the Committee acted as an 'appellate forum'
over the decision of the Board which was not within the power or jurisdiction
of the Committee, nor such authority was conferred or such power was
given by this Court while disposing Onkar Lal Bajaj and on that ground
also, the orders are vulnerable.

B 16. The counsel also submitted that to say or to hold that a decision
was taken by the Board on extraneous consideration is to cast aspersion on
the members of the Committee and the Chairman of the Board who is a
retired Judge of a High Court. It "tould also be against the principles of
natural justice and fair play, since no· opportunity to those members and
c Chairman had been afforded and they were neither before the Committee nor
)-

before this Court. According to the applicants, there may be an error of
judgment on the part of the Board but such error is bona fide and would
not vitiate the action nor it can be construed as violation of guidelines
issued for making selection.

D
17. It -was also urged that the doctrine of equitable/promissory estoppel
would get attracted in all these cases. After the applicants were selected,
letters of intent (Loi) were issued, agreements were entered into and huge
amount had been spent by the allottees. If, at this stage, allotment is
cancelled, serious prejudice will be caused to them and they would suffer
E without there being any fault on their part. Since there is no grievance so
far as the Board is concerned and it was on the basis of decision in Onkar
Lal Bajaj that such an action is taken, even if this Court accepts the report
of the Committee, it may not cancel the allotments already made by declaring
correct legal position.
F
18. It was further submitted that in some cases, the land has been given
by the 'prospective' allottees to the Oil Companies since the allotment was
to be made to owners/occupiers of such land. Keeping in view the fact that
allotment has been made or likely to be made to the applicants, they have
made available land at a concessional rental value. Such agreement is for a
G substantial period. Had the applicants/land owners/occupiers, been not
selected and allotted the distributorship, they would not have entered into
lease agreements and/or claimed substantial amount of rent or return. If at
this stage allotment is cancelled they would be seriously affected for years
to come. This equitable aspect may also be taken into account while
H deciding these applications and before passing final orders.
MUKUNDSWARUPMISHRAv. U.0.1. [THAKKER,J.] 837

19. The learned amicus curiae, on the other hand, submitted that a A
herculean task has been performed by the Committee. Keeping in view the
directions issued by this Court in Onkar Lal Bajaj and considering individual
cases in their proper perspective, the Committee submitted a report by
dealing with each and every case. The report runs into few thousand pages.
The Committee has also observed, as seen in the earlier part of the judgment
that no allotment has been cancelled merely on the ground of political
B
linkage/patronage but while considering the legality or otherwise of the
allotment, political linkage/patronaze was kept in mind as one of the factors.
It was submitted that even after recording a finding that there was a political
linkage/patronage, the Committee has considered as to whether such political
linkage/patronage has weighed with the authorities at the cost of merits or c
undue favour in allotment was made ignoring public interest. 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 Jaw. It
is also clear from the fact that out of 409 cases, the Committee had approved
on merits more than 100 cases and in respect of 297 allotments, it found that
D
they were not in accordance with the guidelines and therefore could not be
approved. The counsel also submitted that the directions in Onkar Lal Bajaj
were explicitly clear and the Committee was asked to consider claims of all
the applicants whether the allotment in their favour was on merits or on
account of any political or 'other consideration'. It, therefore, could not be
said that the direction to the Committee was to consider a political linkage/ E
patronage only. The Committee was bound to consider all the cases as per
the direction of the Court which has been done and no fault can be found
against the report of the Committee and the applications deserve to be
dismissed.
F
20. So far as the preliminary objection is concerned, we find no
substance therein. Reading Onkar Lal Bajaj in its entirety and the directions
issued by this Court, it cannot be said that the Court was considering
allotment only on the basis of political linkage/patronage. It is clear that the
proceedings had been initiated because of news reports appeared in Indian
Express and this Court was called upon to consider the action taken by the G
Central Government of cancellation of all allotments. It was, therefore,
obligatory on the part of the aggrieved parties to satisfy the Court that th.e
action taken by the Government was not in consonance with law. This
Court, keeping in view the circumstances in their entirety, set aside the order
as being violative of principles of natural justice and fair play and directed H
838 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 1 S.C.R.

A the Committee to consider certain cases as to whether allotment had been
on the basis of political patronage/linkage or other extraneous considerations
weighed with the Board 'in making orders of allotment. In fact, in Onkar Lal
Bajaj, the Court noted the submission of the allottees that selection by
DSBs in their favour was on merits and not on account of any political or
other extraneous consideration.
B
21. The Court then said;

"For the present, we are not expressing any opinion on the
-\ -
question whether the selection of the allottees by DSBs in this
c category of alleged tainted allotments was a result of political or
other extraneous consideration or the selection was on merits
alone. As already mentioned, these aspects require an independent
probe".

22. The phrase 'other consideration', in our opinion, therefore, cannot
D
be read ejusdem ·generis with political linkage/connection/patronage. The
expression 'other consideration' would take within its sweep all considerations
other thari merit of the case. Ultimately, the direction of this Court was not
a statute nor it can be considered as an enactment.

E 23. In the light of the above, a Committee was appointed and directions
were issued. The Committee considered the question on merits. It, therefore, ·
' . .
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 direction of this
F Court was to consider extraneous considerations, if any, in· allotment and if
so, to pass an appropriate order and to report on those aspects. We are,
therefore, not inclined to uphold the preliminary objection of the learned
counsel for the petitioners.

24. We are also not impressed by the argument of the petitioners that
G the doctr~e of promissory or equitable estoppel would apply. May be that
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
H Government as early as in August, 2002, the allottees have been protected
MUKUND SWARUP MISHRA v. U.0.1. [THAKKER, J.] 839

by interim order passed by this Court. Even after the decision in Onkar Lal A
Bajaj, interim order was continued. In the circumstances, for more than four
years interim order is .in favour of allottees even though the allotment is
found to be illegal or contrary to law. In our opinion, therefore, it is not open
to the allottees whose allotments have been found to be vitiated to plead
equity.
B
25. In our opinion, the learned amicus curiae is right that the Committee
~; had considered in detail individual cases and submitted the report. This
Court, therefore, would consider a complaint of an allottee who can
successfully put forward his complaint and may satisfy this Court that in the
facts and circumstances of the case, the finding of the Committee that the C
allotment was not on merits was not correct. But only in those individual
cases, the Court would consider and may grant relief to such applicants. It,
however, cannot be said that the report of the Committee was without
power, authority or jurisdiction or was uncalled for and liable to be ignored.

D
26. Having considered the basic issues, it is now time to consider
individual cases.

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

27. So far as Himachal Pradesh is concerned, sixteen cases were E
referred to the Committee and the Committee considered all the cases and
found that in respect of five cases, the allotment was on merits while in
eleven cases it was not on merits and was held to be vitiated. Four
applicants, namely, Mahesh Kumar, Deshraj, Ms. Anita Kumari Sandal and
Smt. Lakshmi Devi have approached this Court. We have gone through the F
report of the Committee and found that the Committee was right in its
conclusions. We, therefore, hold that the cancellation of allotment in eleven
cases cannot be said to be illegal or unlawful. All interim applications,
therefore, deserve to be dismissed and are, accordingly, dismissed.

STATE OF JHARKHAND G

28. In State of Jharkhand, twelve cases were referred to the Committee.
Three were found to be on merit and remaining nine were not on merit. Five
applicants have approached this Court. In the case of Rohit Priyadarshi
Oraon and Smt. Poonam Singh, the Committee observed that both were H .
•

840 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 1 S.C.R.

A ineligible and hence could not be allotted retail outlet. As to Smt. Mamta
Kumari, the Committee observed that though she was only a housewife, a
retail outlet had been allotted to her who is a daughter of one Nand Kishore
Yadav, BJP Bihar Unit President. It was also observed that another allotment
has been made to her brother. According to the Committee, the allotment
was not on merits. It cannot be said that the above findings deserve
B interference. For Smt. Sushila Hansdak, wife of Congress MP, no one
appeared. The Report of the Committee is accepted in regard to the said
four allottees.

29. The case of Janendra Kumar Rai appears to be a border line case
C and in the facts and circumstances, in our opinion, allotment could not have
been cancelled. Application of Janendra Kumar Rai is, therefore, allowed and
recommendation for cancellation of allotment in his case is not accepted.

STATE OF CHATTISGARH

D 30. So far as Chattisgarh is concerned, we are having two applications.
Five cases were referred to the Committee. Two were found to be on merits.
Allotment in favour of 3 allottees was found to be arbitrary by the
Committee. Having gone through the reasons of the Committee, it cannot be
said that the order deserves interference by this Court. One application is
E by a non-allottee. It is not considered by us since we are of the view that
it is not of the function of this Court to consider the cases of other
applicants for the grant/allotment of outlet. The Report of the Committee
is accepted.

STATE OF GUJARAT
F
31. In regard to Gujarat, eighteen cases were referred to the Committee.
Seven were found to be on merit. Nine were not found to be on merit. Two
were not considered. There are six applications. In the cases of Rathod
Bhanu Mayabhai, Manek Jayadeep Karanbhai, Madhubhai Thakore and
Bhartiben Nardevbahi Patel, we find that the Committee has rightly held that
G allotment could not have been made for the reasons recorded in the report.
We have gone through the reasons which weighed with the Committee and
find no illegality therein.

32. So far as Siddharaj Bharatsingh Rana and Manish Kantibhai Solani
H are concerned, no political connection was found and they are border line
MUKUNDSWARUPMISHRAv. U.0.1. [THAKKER,J.] 841

cases. In view of the said fact, in our opinion, it would be appropriate if A
allotment in their favour is not disturbed. We, therefore, allow these
applications and set aside the cancellation.

33. Regarding Hirasinh R. Baria, it was not case of cancellation as he
was not an allottee. It was also stated that a petition is pending and the
matter is sub-judice in the High Court of Gujarat. We, therefore, reject the B
application reserving liberty to pursue the matter before the High Court.

STATEOFTAMILNADU

34. In the State of Tamil Nadu, eleven cases were referred to the C
Committee. Two were found to be on merit. Nine were found to be not on
merit. Out of them, six have filed applications before us. The Committee
dealt with cases ofG.Raviraj, S. Guna Sekaran, K. Sanmugham, Arul R, A.P.
Mahesh and Tamilkumaran and after considering the relevant guidelines
held that allotment was vitiated as they were not in consonance with the
guidelines. Having examined the Report, we acce~t the same in respect of
D
all allottees. Consequently, all six applications are rejected.

STATE OF RAJASTHAN

35. In respect of State of Rajasthan, the Committee considered forty- E
seven cases and found that ten were in order and remaining thirty-seven
allotments were not in consonance with law. Out of them, thirty-three have
filed applications. We have been taken to the reasoning recorded by the
Committee. So far as Smt. Krishna Kanwar, Kundan Sharma, Prem Ratan and
Rameshwar Khandelwar are concerned, it appears that they are in the nature F
of border line cases and we, therefore, hold that in respect of those four
applicants, allotment may continue. The applications by those four are
allowed and the cancellation is set aside. Regarding other cases, accepting
the reasons recorded in the report by the Committee, we find that no
illegality had been committed in cancellation. All those applications are,
therefore, rejected. G

PUNJAB

36. In respect of State of Punjab, the Committee considered thirty-
seven cases referred to it. It found that seven allotments were on merit and H
842 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 1 S.C.R.

A twenty-nine allotments were not in consonance with the guidelines. Out of
them, twenty-six have filed applications. We have been taken through the
reasoning recorded by the Committee. So far as cases of Shri Surinder
Singh, Chander Kant Bhatia, Gurpreet Singh, Smt. Kanta Rani, Smt. Suman
Lata, Ms. Ruby Sekhri, Mr. Manmohan Singh, Mr. Rajesh Madan and Mr.
Tejinder Singh are concerned, they appear to be border line cases. In our
B view, it may not be appropriate to cancel the allotment in favour of these
nine persons. Their applications are allowed. Rest of the cases do not call
for interference and the applications are rejected. There are six applications
by non-allottees. They are also rejected as we are not concerned with non-
allottees.
c
STATE OF HARYANA

37.· In regard to State of Haryana, the Committee considered twenty-
one cases referred. It found no irregularity in allotment in seven cases. It
disapproved allotments in fourteen cases. Out of them, twelve have filed
D applications. We find no infirmity in the conclusions arrived at or reasons
recorded by the Committee and no interference is called for. The other
applications are rejected.

38. All interim applications with regard to above-mentioned States are
E disposed of, including applications for impleadment. Interim orders in
favour of those applicants whose allotments have been cancelled would
continue for three months and· stand vacated thereafter.

39. So far as remaining cases are concerned, they stand adjourned.
p Registry is directed to place the matters before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of
India for listing of these matters before appropriate bench.

40. Before parting with the matter, we would like to place on record our
appreciation for Mr. Gopal Subram~iam, amicus curiae for onerous work
undertaken by him and in placing before the Court necessary facts and
G circumstances so as to enable us to decide individual cases.

B.B.B. Interim Applications disposed of.
other mtters adjourned.

H