SEEMA UPADHYAY versus UNION OF INDIA THR. THE SECRETARY, MIN. OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS AND ORS.

Citation: [2018] 3 S.C.R. 837 · Decided: 05-04-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
837
SEEMA UPADHYAY
v.
UNION OF INDIA THR. THE SECRETARY, MIN.
OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS AND ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 675 of 2013)
APRIL 05, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Public Distribution System – Dealership – Kerosene –
Allegation in writ petition was that second respondent owned multiple
dealerships for distribution of petroleum products, and they are
held in the names of persons closely related to or associated with
him – Fact finding inquiry was conducted – However the inquiry
did not result in any conclusive determination on the allegations –
Held: The issue as to whether the second respondent owned multiple
dealerships or outlets for petroleum products, in violation of the
applicable rules and regulations, has to be determined by the oil
company or companies concerned with the issue – None of the oil
companies were impleaded to these proceedings – In their absence,
it would not be possible for the Court to make any factual
determination – Whether an individual holds a dealership or outlet
benami would turn on an appreciation of factual material which
cannot be inquired into in the exercise of the jurisdiction under
Art.32 – Consequently it would be open to the petitioner to bring
such material as she has in her possession to the attention of the
concerned oil companies for such action as is deemed necessary –
As regards the allegation of adulteration of petroleum products,
Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas in its affidavit stated the
steps taken by public sector oil manufacturing companies to conduct
regular checks on the quality and quantity of petrol and diesel being
supplied by retail outlets to the public at large – It was stated in the
affidavit that Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of
Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 2005
and the Kerosene (Restriction on Use and Fixation of Ceiling Price)
Order, 1993 have made provisions to enable the States and Union
Territories to take action against malpractices  and that the Ministry
[2018] 3 S.C.R. 837
837
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
838
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
intended to implement the direct transfer scheme in kerosene in
identified districts of different states on a pilot basis – These are
essentially matters of policy – Union Ministry of Petroleum and
Natural Gas is seized of the issue – Moreover, defence that petition
has been instituted for reasons other than a genuine effort to espouse
an issue of public interest also cannot be discarded – Petition is
accordingly disposed of – Kerosene (Restriction on Use and Fixation
of Ceiling Price) Amendment Order, 2007 – Essential commodities
– Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply,
Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 2005 –
Kerosene (Restriction on Use and Fixation of Ceiling Price) Order,
1993.
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
675 of 2013.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
Dr. Rajeev Sharma, Chandra Shekhar, Dharmendra Sharma, Vipin
Kumar Sharma, Raghuvir Sharma, Haji Salimuddin, Ram Anugrah Singh,
Advs. for the Petitioner.
Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG, S. Wasim A. Qadri, Mrs. Binu Tamta,
Ms. Sridha Mehra, Raj Bahadur Yadav, R. D. Chauhan, Arun K.
Chauhan, Farasat Ali Siddiqui, Arvind Kumar, Ram Swaroop Sharma,
Kaushal Yadav, Dr. Kailash Chand, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. Invoking the jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks the
following reliefs:
“a)… a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents to get the matters of the known and
reported cases of adulteration operated by the Mafias referred
herein above, investigated through an independent agency
preferably CBI;
b) … appropriate writ of mandamus commanding the respondents
to directly transfer the cash subsidy in the bank accounts of the
beneficiaries of the kerosene oil on the basis of their Adhar Card
or through public distribution system or some other full proof
mechanism;..”
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
839
2. On 23 August 2013 when the petition came up for preliminary
hearing, the following directions were issued:
“From para 5 onwards the writ petition makes several allegations
against Devender Agrawal and one of his relative Dharmendra
Agarwal. The petitioner has not however chosen to implead the
said two parties as party respondents to the petition. 

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