V. PURUSHOTHAM RAO versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 411 · Decided: 19-10-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

V. PURUSHOTHAM RAO 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 19, 2001 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND RUMA PAL, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
Article 226-Writ petition-Challenging the allotments of petrol pumps/ 
Gas agencies under the discretionary quota made by the Minister-High Court 
held, the discretion had been exercised on sufficient materials and «fter enquiry 
discharged the notice of cancellation-In other cases, found allotment made on 
some extraneous considerations/political patronage hence cancelled the allot-
ment-On appeal, held, in one of the matter B, the Court issued guidelines to 
be followed while making discretionary allotments-Subsequently, in another 
matter on similar issue the Court cancelled allotments, on.finding, that Minister 
had made allotments without following guidelines and in a cluster manner and 
the public property doled out in wholly arbitrary and discriminatory manner. 
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 : 
Section ] ]-Explanation (IV) -Constructive res-judicata-Applicability 
of Principle of Constructive res-judicata-lt cannot be made applicable in each 
and every public interest litigation, irrespective of the nature of litigation. 
Order 1, Rule 8-Issuance of notice-Procedure of-The objective to 
give opportunity to persons likely to be «ffected by litigation so ihat they may 
be heard-Each and every allottee had been duly noticed, availed of opportu-
nity of examining the original file-Under the circumstances there was no 
requirement of issuing further notice. 
Administrative Law : 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Discretion-Exercise of-Verification by the Minister-The material on 
which subjective satisfaction of the Minister was arrived at-For justifiable 
G 
reasons-Inquiry by the Oil Company cannot make the arbitrary order of the 
Minister legal or just order-Public property-Must be dealt with for public 
purposes and in public interest. 
Grant of relief to allottees-On equitable consideration~It is not appro-
priate as granting of relief on sympathetic consideration on the ground of H 
411 
412 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
equity would be a case of misplaced sympathy-No infirmity with ultimate 
conclusion of High Court in cancelling the allotments. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Prior to 1995, the then Union Minister of Petroleum, in exercise of 
his discretion had been allotting retail outlets for petroleum products, 
L.P.G. dealership and SKO dealership without any prescribed norms. A 
PIL petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was filed praying 
for issuance of guidelines to regulate the exercise of discretion, in the 
matter of such allotment Accordingly, this Court issued guidelines which 
had been reported in 1995_ Suppl. (3) SCC 382. 
'Common Cause' had also filed a petition on the same issue under 
Article 32 on the basis of a news item praying for cancellation of allotment 
made by the Minister concerned. This Court ultimately cancelled the 
allotment holding that the allotments were arbitrary, discrimin~tory, 
malafide and wholly illegal and also issued show cause notice to the Minis-
ter concerned as to why direction be not issued to police authority to 
register a case for criminal breach of trust or any other offence and why he 
should not be liable to pay damages for his malafide action. This decision 
was reported in 1996 (6) sec 530. 
In the meanwhile, Centre for Public Interest Litigation filed Civil 
Writ Petitions on similar issues before Delhi High Court. Subsequently it 
filed Transfer Petition for transferring the matters to this Court On 
notice, affidavits had been filed by the Ministry of Petroleum. This Court 
held that since two Writ Petitions were pending before the Delhi High 
Court challenging the above said allotments, it was not necessary for this 
Court to transfer the petitions and decide the matter. However, directions 
were issued for transfer of the affidavits with enclosures to the High Court 
and for expediting the hearing of the Petitions by the High Court. 
In the matter of Common Cause v. Union of India, the then Minister 
filed an affidavit. After hearing, the Court directed the CBI to hold an 
investigation after registering a case against the Minister and also imposed 
exemplary damage of Rs. 50 lacs on the Minister concerned. The judgment 
was reported in 1996 (6) SCC 593. Aggrieved, the then Minister filed a 
Review Petition which was allowed by a three-Judge Bench of this Court 
holding that the factors relevant to the exem

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