20 years after ‘ban’, petrol pump still runs | India News
NEW DELHI: Petrol pumps arbitrarily allotted as largesse by then petroleum minister Satish Sharma was cancelled in 1997 by the courts, however 20 years later, the Supreme Courtroom was shocked to discover a lady in Uttar Pradesh, who was president of Youth Congress earlier, persevering with to function her petrol pump regardless of cancellation.
Miffed by IndianOil Company’s failure to take over the dealership from the lady due to a defective public public sale commercial, a bench of Justices N V Ramana and Amitava Roy ordered inquiry and motion towards the IOC officers chargeable for non-compliance of the court docket order for 20 years.
The Delhi excessive court docket on August 29, 1997 cancelled allotment of Shashi Prabha Shukla, who had obtained the petrol pump allotted on a stretch of nationwide freeway in Basti district from the minister’s discretionary quota by means of an undated software saying she was an unemployed graduate with eager curiosity in rural growth actions and welfare of ladies however had no common supply of livelihood.
The HC recorded in its order, “From the applying, it seems that the applicant is a resident of district Sultanpur (then constituency of Satish Sharma) in UP. The allotment in her favour has been made in an informal method as is the case in respect of allotments in different instances. We have been informed by her counsel that she is president of Youth Congress.”
The HC had ordered government-owned firms coping with petrol, diesel and LPG to public sale the cancelled retail dealerships earlier than December 1, 1997. Out of the public sale cash obtained, value of the land was to be refunded to the individual whose dealership was cancelled and the remainder of the cash was to be paid to the Prime Minister’s aid fund, the HC had mentioned.
When the IOC served a discover on Shukla for closure of the retail outlet, she requested the company to return the land after taking out the fueldispensing machines put in on the plot. With out responding to it, the company marketed for public sale of the outlet. She challenged the commercial earlier than the Allahabad HC in October 1998 alleging that her land was not returned.
The Allahabad HC stayed the public sale and directed IOC to permit her to proceed with the dealership. In 2004, the identical HC requested IOC to award a recent dealership to her as per its new coverage framed in 2004. IOC by means of advocate ADN Rao challenged this earlier than the SC.
The bench of Justices Ramana and Roy mentioned, “We’re of the unhesitating opinion that the course to award new dealership below the prevalent coverage of February 12, 2004, having regard to the backdrop of adjudication undertaken by the Delhi HC, would quantity to perpetuation of the undue profit earlier bestowed on her by a way held to be unlawful, doubtful, arbitrary and transgressive of public curiosity.”
Setting apart the Allahabad HC order, the bench requested IOC to provoke a recent course of for award of recent dealership within the space. Nonetheless, it mentioned it was “vastly anguished and appalled” by the style by which IOC and its functionaries had acted within the face of the Delhi HC judgment cancelling the allotment.
“We direct the company to trigger an in-house inquiry to repair legal responsibility of errant officers on the problem and determine applicable motion towards them in accordance with legislation inside two months. The company after finishing this train would submit a report earlier than this court docket for additional orders, if vital We make it clear that any breach or non-compliance of this course could be construed as contempt of this court docket with penal penalties as contemplated in legislation,” the bench mentioned.