Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Seema Upadhyay vs Union Of India And Ors. Ministry Of ... on 26 August, 2016
Bench: Chief Justice, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud
1
ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.1 SECTION PIL(W)
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).675 OF 2013
SEEMA UPADHYAY Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
U.O.I. AND ORS. Respondent(s)
(with appln. (s) for impleadment and office report)
Date : 26/08/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
For Petitioner(s) Dr. Rajeev Sharma,Adv.
Mr. Vipin Kumar Sharma,Adv.
Mr. Raghuvir Sharma,Adv.
Mr. Dharmendra Sharma,Adv.
Mr. Ram Anugrah Singh,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Ranjit Kumar,SG
(RR-1) Ms. Binu Tamta,Adv.
Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri,Adv.
Ms. Movita,Adv.
Mr. Niraj Kumar Sharma,Adv.
Mr. B.K. Prasad,Adv.
(For Applicant) Mr. Kaushal Yadav,Adv.
(RR-2) Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Nikhil Sharma,Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Heard.
An application (I.A.No.1 of 2015) for impleadment has been Signature Not Verified filed Digitally signed by SHASHI SAREEN Date: 2016.08.30 by Union of India through Ministry of Petroleum and 16:45:09 IST Reason:
Natural Gas for being added as party respondent to this case. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General, submits that since 2 Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas is the concerned Ministry, it is more appropriate to implead Union of India through Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. We accordingly add Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as party respondent in place of Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs. Cause title be amended accordingly.
There are serious allegations in the writ petition, which are denied by the respondents, as to the number of petrol pumps that are owned and controlled by respondent No.2-Devender Agrawal alias Mukesh Kumar/Agrawal. There are also certain allegations that the said Agrawal has several petty diesel dealerships held benami by him. Para “9” of the writ petition sets out these allegations in some detail which may be reproduced:
“9. That Shri Agrawal owns a dozen of petty dealers of diesel and about a dozen of S.P. company petrol pumps in his name or in the names of near relations while the cost of one such petrol pump is about Rs. 1 to 1.50 crore.
The names of the main petty diesel dealers are:
1) Mukesh Automobiles, Hathras Jalesar Marg, Gangoli Hathras in the fraudulent name of mukesh Kumar S/o Mahendra Pal Agrawal. Subsequently it was transferred to Nagla Salem (Sadabad Behdoi Marg) All formalities are done by Devender Agrawal @ Mukesh Kumar whereas no allotment can be made in the alias name and the same is contrary to the guideline of the Petroleum Ministry.
2) Petty Diesel dealer license obtained in the name of Pooran Singh S/o Shri Chandrapal Singh at Jalesar Marg, Hathras Junction.
3) Petty Diesel dealer license at Hathras-Jalesar 3 Marg, Village Bhopatpur, in the name of Rakesh Agrawal brother of Devender Agrawal.
4) Petty Diesel dealer at Hathras-Sadabad Marg, near Kachchpura (Bisana) in the name of Manohar Lal.
5) Petty Diesel dealer license at Hathras-Aligarh Marg near Hanuman Chowki, Village Basai Qaji, obtained fraudulently in the name of Santosh Kumar S/o Netrapal, servant of Devendra Agrawal.
6) Petty Diesel dealer license in Qasba Maindu at Hathras in the name of Suresh Chandra and partner Shri Deepak Kumar. Deepak Kumar is the brother of the wife of Devendra Agrawal.
7) Petty Diesel dealer license at Hathras-Jalesar Marg, at Nagla Islamia in the name of Praveen Kumar S/o Gopal Dass Agrawal. Praveen Kumar is the brother of the wife of Devendra Agrawal.” Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are inclined to direct a fact finding enquiry into the averments made in the above paragraph, by an officer of the rank of Joint Secretary to Government of India, to be nominated by the Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. The Enquiry Officer, so appointed, shall look into the allegations, made in para “9” and submit a report, after holding an enquiry into the relevant facts. The petitioner may furnish the details and supporting materials, if so advised, to the Enquiry Officer within two weeks from today. The Enquiry Officer shall be free to take such assistance of the licensing authorities concerned who have issued licences to the dealers concerned as may be necessary. Enquiry Officer shall also be assisted in all respects by the District Administration of the State 4 Government. Needless to say that the Enquiry Officer shall issue a notice to respondent NO.2- Devender Agrawal alias Mukesh Kumar/Agrawal for purpose of holding an enquiry and take into consideration the materials that may be placed on record by him while drawing his conclusion.
Mr. Kumar has also drawn our attention to Kerosene (Restriction on Use and Fixation of Ceiling Price) Amendment Order, 2007. He submits that in terms of Rule 8A of the said Order all kerosene sold in India, whether under the public distribution system or parallel marketing system, has to be blended with a marker at five parts per million (ppm) concentration with a view to preventing its diversion or use for adulteration of other petroleum products. He submits that according to his instructions kerosene is now being sold through public distribution systems and parallel marketing systems duly blended with marker as required under the said Rule. He is, however, unable to say whether the petrol and diesel vending/dispensing machines, installed in the petrol and diesel vending stations, are sensitive to the said marker and whether the machines refuse to dispense the product if the same is adulterated by use of kerosene. He submits that given time, he will file an additional affidavit of the concerned officer to clarify the position. He may do so. The affidavit shall also clarify whether technology today permits use of any machine that can detect adulteration of the product and decline to dispense the same in case it is adulterated. The affidavit may also indicate whether “test kit” referred to in sub-clause 5
(ii) (ka) of clause 2 of the Order, mentioned above, is a part of the dispensing machine or is independent of the same. Post after six weeks. Needful be done in the meantime. Additional documents, if any, be filed by the parties before the next date of hearing.
(MAHABIR SINGH) (VEENA KHERA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER