Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
PETITIONER:
SHRI MAHINDER KUMAR GUPTA ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
DATE OF JUDGMENT22/09/1994
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
VENKATACHALA N. (J)
CITATION:
1995 SCC (1) 85 JT 1995 (1) 11
1994 SCALE (4)803
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
ORDER
1. This appeal arises from the judgment and order of the
Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition
No.3165 of 1991 dated 1.11.1991. Writ Petition No.253/93
was filed by an Association and also a Partner as an
individual. Writ Petition 64/1994 was filed by the
petitioner who is a widow and daughter of a dealer in
petroleum products. These matters relate to the contracts of
dealership or distributorship of petroleum products
awardable by the Government of India Undertakings. In the
first case, admittedly, the appellant’s son-in-law is
already having a dealership for distribution of petroleum
products. In the second case it is an admitted fact that one
of the appellant’s partners is already having a dealership
of petroleum products and in the third case, the appellant’s
mother is already having a dealership of petroleum products.
2. The questions raised in these appeals/petitions are
whether the government
12
is justified in imposition of eligibility restrictions in
the award of retail outlets (other than ""’ wheeler ROs),
SKO-LD dealerships and LPG distributorships guidelines. Part
III of the guidelines prescribes the eligibility criteria
viz., nationality, age on the date of application,
educational qualifications, residence, SC/ST Certificates,
eligibility for freedom fighters and physically
handicapped/government personnel disabled on duty/widows of
govt. personnel who die in the course of duty. Then
dealer’s relationship (applicable for all categories) has
been prescribed as one of the criteria which reads as under
:-
(a) No person or a Consumer Co-operative
Society shall be awarded a new dealership/
distributorship if he/she or the Consumer Co-
operative Society already holds a dealership/
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
distributorship of LPG/Kerosene
/LDO/HSD/MS/Lubricating Oil of any Oil
Company.
(b) No person shall be awarded a new
Dealership/Distributorship if any of the
following close relatives (including step
relatives) of the person already hold a
dealership/distributorship of LPG /
Kerosene/LDO/HSD/MS/Lubricating oil or ,my
other petroleum products of any Oil Company.
For other than PH candidates in ] For PH candidates only
PH Category FF,DEF,SC/ST and OPEN
i0) Spouse ] i) Spouse
ii) Father/Mother ] ii) Father/Mother
iii)Brother/Sister ] iii)Son/daughter-in-law
iv) Son/daughter ]
v) Son-in-law/daughter ]
in-law ]
vi) Parents-in-law ]
3. Clause 10 of the guidelines relates to Partnerships
with which we are concerned in one of the matters. The
procedure for selection has been prescribed in Part VI of
the guidelines. Criterion No.2 relates to screening of the
applicants for interview. Then, Rule 3 relates to norms for
evaluation of. Competing claims of the candidates and Rule
5 regulates selection of dealer/distributors. In this ease,
we are concerned with dealership of petroleum products
applicable for all categories in which Clause (b) prescribes
ineligibility of persons if one of the persons mentioned
therein has already a dealership. It is seen that one of the
conditions subject to which a candidate is entitled to apply
for grant of dealership is that his spouse, father/mother,
brother/sister, son/ daughter, son-in-law/daughter-in-law
and parents-in-law if already had been given dealership,
he/she is made ineligible to apply for dealership. In the
case of partner-
13
ships, partners should individually fulfil the above-
mentioned eligibility criteria/conditions and all of them
must appear for an interview together.
4. Shri Ravindra Bhat, learned counsel for the
appellant/petitioners contended that under Art. 19(1)(g) all
citizens have the right to practice any profession or to
carry on any occupation, trade or business.
Appellant/petitioners being eligible candidates to apply for
the dealership or distributorship, then, one or the other of
them cannot be made ineligible on the ground that his/her
spouse, parents, son’s-in-law or a relative is already
having a dealership, because it is his/her own business and
he has nothing to do with his son’s-in-law and that,
therefore, the prescription of ineligibility due to
relationship is void under Art. 19(1)(g). It is also
arbitrary, unjust and also it bears no reasonable nexus to
the object sought to be achieved. He further contended that
while prescribing the ineligibility criteria for persons
other than the physically handicapped ’PH’ category,
discrimination has been made between the other persons and
physically handicapped candidates in whose favour the
ineligibility is only in respect of spouse, parents,
son/daughter-in-law. The daughters and others having been
excluded from the eligibility, the inclusion of parents-in-
law, sons-in-law etc. in respect of others is also violative
of Art. 14 of the Constitution. We find no force in the
contention.
5. The preamble to the Constitution envisages the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
securing of economic and social justice to all its
citizens; accorded equality of status and of opportunity
assuring the dignity of the individual. Art. 39(b)
postulates that the, ownership and control of the material
resources of the community are to be so distributed as to
best subserve the common good. Clause (c) prevents
concentration of wealth and means of production to the
common detriment. Since the grant of dealership or
distributorship of the petroleum products belongs to the
Govt. largess, the gevt. in its policy of granting the
largesse have prescribed the eligibility criteria. One of
the eligibility criteria is that one among the near
relations or partners or associates in other words among a
named group of persons alone should have dealership and
there should not be any concentration by them in the
distribution of its petroleum products through the
dealership. The guidelines further intend to prevent
frustration of the State policy by process of legal
ingenuity or subterfuge One of the criteria is relationship-
The relationship criteria has been prescribed to see that
the persons who already had one dealership should not apply
so that the above objectives of the Constitution are
achieved. In Part II1, clause (b) of the relationship
category, a person among specified near relatives has been
made ineligible to apply for another dealership to any
of the nationalised oil companies. The
petitioners/appellants de hors the guidelines have no
independent right to have business or avocation in the
distribution or production or ownership of one of the
petroleum products. Production and distribution of the :
Petroleum products are the exclusive monopoly of the State
under Art. 19(6) of the Constitution. As a part of its
policy of the distribution of its largesse government have
prescribed the eligibility criteria to the persons to obtain
dealership for distribution of petroleum products. The
distribution of the largesse of the State is for the common
good and to subserve the common good of as many persons as
possible. The
14
Govt. of India intended to group together certain near
relations as a unit and one among that unit alone was
made eligible to apply for and claim for grant of
dealership. Further economic and social justice as
envisaged in the preamble of the Construction is sought to
be achieved. Therefore there is a reasonable nexus
between the object and the prescription of the eligibility
criterial envisages in the guidelines. All those who
satisfy the eligibility criteria alone are entitled to
apply for the consideration for the grant of dealership. It
is true that in case of physically handicapped persons were
made ineligible. Physically handicapped persons have been
treated as a class by themselves. Under these
circumstances any other person other than PH cannot
claim parity with PH persons. As far as partnership is
concerned, if one of the persons either have a dealership
or relations who were found to be eligible under teh
relationship criteria, and had the dealership, than clause
10 of the said guidelines gets attracted and such
partnership also did not become eligible to apply for
dealership/distributorship. The object of clause 10 appears
to be that for those partners had dealership, the other
partner or the specified relations also not be eligible
to apply for grant of dealership individually or as a
member of the partnership. Therefore the guidelines are
based on public policy to give effect to the constitutional
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
creed of Part IV of the Indian Court.
6. Under these circumstances, we find no arbitrariness
or unjustness in prescription of the guidelines for the
eligibility criteria. The second writ petition stands
liable to be dismissed on the sale ground that the
Association cannot file a writ petition as it has no
fundamental right under Art.32 of the Constitution. One of
the petitioners/appellants has claimed as having
partnership, but the details thereof have not been given. We
therefore dismiss teh appeal as well as the writ petitions
with costs quantified at Rs. 20,000/- each.
15