MUKUND SWARUP MISHRA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 1 S.C.R. 825 · Decided: 12-01-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL · Disposal: IA disposed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
MUKUND SW ARUP MISHRA 
A 
.;. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
JANUARY 12, 2007 
[Y .K. SABHARW AL, CJI, C.K. THAKKER AND 
B 
R.V. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.] 
--;. 
Judgment/Order -Directions of Court-Interpretation of-Allotment 
of retails outlets of petroleum products, LPG distributorship and SKO-LDO 
dealership allegedly influenced by political patronage/linkage-Allotments c 
• 
cancelled by Central Government-Challenge by aggrieved allottees-
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 
phrase 'other consideration' is not ejusdem generis with political linkage/ 
__ -t 
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 
A 
B 
c 
826 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] I S.C.R. 
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 
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. 
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 con

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.