LexINDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED & ANR. versus KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPGRATION & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 14 S.C.R. 507 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED & ANR. ' A v. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPGRATION & ORS. (Civil Appeal No.18917 of2017) NOVEMBER07, 2017 [ARUN MISHRA AND . MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.] B Administrative Law - Policy Decision - . Withdrawal of subsidy - Govermnen( of India decided not to make the payment of C subsidy to the bulk consumers of diesel - Validity of - Writ applications filed in Kera/a and other States claiming decision of the Government of India was arbitrary and that it would make difficult for the State Road Transport Corporations to render. its services to the public at large - It was also cOntended that it was obligatory on the part of the Respondents/Government of India to D provide maximum concession/subsidy/benevolence in the matter of sale of diesel to the Transport Corporations - Held: The grant of subsidy is a matter of privilege, to be extended by the Government - It cannot be claimed as of right - No writ lies for extending or continuing the benefit of privilege in the form of concession - E Subsidy is a matter ojjiscal policy - Such privilege can be withdrawn at any time - It was open to the Government of India to take decision to withdraw the subsidy enjoyed by the hulk consumers - Further. even for the purpose of public services, Transport corporations cannot claim subsidy as of right that Government of India or the State Government should continue or grant the subsidy - It cannot F be claimed as a matter of right; no such right exists to claim the subsidy - Thus. the decision of Government of India not to extend subsidy to bulk consumers of diesel could not be said to be an arbitrafy-deeision, ·discriminatory or in violation of the principles contained in Art.14 of the Con~·titution - Such policy decision not G amenable to judicial review - Court cannot interfere in such matte1~~ - Rights and Privileges. Disposing of the appeals and transferred cases, the Court HELD: 1. Firstly, coming to the issue of the policy framed by the Government of India; the grant of subsidy is a matter of H 507 508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R. A privilege, to be extended by the Government. It cannot be claimed as of right. No writ lies for extending or continuing the benefit of privilege in the form of concession. Subsidy is the matter of fiscal policy. Such privilege can be withdrawn at any time. Thus, it was open to the Government of India to take a decision to withdraw B the subsidy enjoyed by the bulk consumers; and, it was a decision based upon the aforestated rationale to direct funds for social welfare scheme for common man and that by grant of subsidy, the Oil Marketing Companies (OMC) had suffered heavy losses, and had borrowed excessive money. Thus, it was decided by the Government of India, not to the extend subsidy to bulk C consumers; same could not be said to be an arbitrary decision, discriminatory or in violation of the principles contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Such policy decisions are not amenable to judicial review. [Paras 16, 17] [515-D-G] 2. There is no merit in the submissions raised that subsidy D should have been continued as an exception for the State Road Transport Corporations, though they may have been rendering public service. However, for the purpose of such public services, corporation cannot claim as of right that Government of India or the State Government should continue or grant the subsidy. It . cannot be claimed as a matter of right; no such right exists to E claim the subsidy. The Court cannot interfere in such matters. F G H [Para 20] [517-D] State of Rajasthan V. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. (2004) 7 SCC 673 : [2004] 4 Suppl. SCR 812; Shree Sidhbali Steels Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2011) 3 SCC 193 : [2011] 3 SCR 134; Ayurved Shastra Seva Manda/ & Am: v. Union of India & Ors. (2013) 16 SCC 696 : [2013] 4 SCR 1098; Madras City Wine Merchants· Association & Am: v. State of T.N & Anr. (1994) 5 SCC 509 : [1994] 2 Suppl. SCR 281; Har Shankar & Ors. v. The Dy. Excise & Taxation Commissioner & Ors. (1975) 1 SCC 737 : (1975] 3 SCR 254 - referred to. Case Law Reference (2004] 4 Suppl. SCR 812 [2011] 3 SCR 134 referred to referred to Para 17 Para 18 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED v. KERALA STATE 509 ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION [2013] 4 SCR 1098 [1994] 2 Suppl. SCR 281 [1975) 3SCR254 referred to referred to referred to Para
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.