Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Writ Petition (civil) 465 of 2004
PETITIONER:
Jyotsna Dwivedi
RESPONDENT:
Union of India & Ors
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/02/2007
BENCH:
Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN & ALTAMAS KABIR
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.
Heard Ms. Jyotsna Dwivedi, Petitioner in person and Mr. Goolam
E. Vahanvati, Learned Solicitor General of India, Mr. T.S. Doabia,
learned Senior Counsel, Mrs. Shobha Dikshit, learned Senior
Counsel and Mr. Avatar Singh Rawat, learned counsel for the
respondents.
The Writ Petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India 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.
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.
Pursuant to our directions, the Union of India (Ministry of
Petroleum 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 Affidavit.
The total 492 cases were recommended for grant of the benefit
under the Scheme. 47 cases were advised by the Directorate
General of 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.
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 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 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 in this regard
and copies of those letters have also been annexed along with the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
Affidavit.
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 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 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.
It is, thus, seen that the Ministry has substantially complied with
the 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 approach the High Court for
an early disposal of the pending cases.
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.
No orders on application for impleadment is now necessary.
I.As., applications for directions, are also disposed of.
No costs.