Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sg West Bengal Kerosene Agents' Welfare ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 March, 2024
Author: Soumen Sen
Bench: Soumen Sen
MAT 354 of 2024
Items- CAN 1 of 2024
27-03-2024
5&6.
CAN 2 of 2024
Ct. 8
sg West Bengal Kerosene Agents' Welfare Association
Versus
Union of India & Ors.
With
CPAN 502 of 2024
West Bengal Kerosene Agents' Welfare Association
Versus
Pankaj Jain & Anr.
Mr. Shyamal Sarkar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ramesh Dhara, Adv.
Miss. Mousumi Chowdhury, Adv.
...for applicant in CPAN 502/2024
Mr. Atarup Banerjee, Adv.
Ms. Sarda Sha, Adv.
...for the applicant in
CAN 2 /UOI
Mr. Amritlal Chatterjee, Adv.
...for the State
1. CAN 2 of 2024 is an application for modification of the
order dated 28th February, 2024.
2. Mr. Atarup Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf
of the Union of India has submitted that a policy decision
has been taken by the Government of India, Ministry of
Petroleum and Natural Gas to reduce the consumption of
kerosene for a clean environment. However, it has been
fairly submitted that the memorandum dated 9 th February,
2021 and the subsequent documents disclosed in this
petition were not placed before the learned Single Judge
when the judgment was delivered on 31st January, 2024.
The documents disclosed in this petition from page 65
2
onwards would show the Government was contemplating
reduction in the allocation of PDS kerosene to States/UTs
for the financial year 2023-24.
3. Mr. Banerjee has submitted that the applicant has found
the requisition sent by the State of West Bengal for
allotment of kerosene to be unusually high.
4. However, we do not find any such document or
communication from the applicant calling for explanation
or requiring any clarification with regard to requisition
sent by the State. It is an admitted position that till the
impugned judgment was passed, the applicant on the basis
of the interim order dated 28th October, 2016 was
allocating kerosene as per requisition sent by the State of
West Bengal without raising any disputes or query. In our
order dated 28th February, 2024, we have only made an
interim arrangement till the Government takes a final
decision on the requisition.
5. In view thereof, we are not willing to modify the interim
order having regard to the fact that the applicant has not
raised any objection earlier with regard to requirement of
kerosene and the requisition sent by the State month by
month until December, 2023 has not been questioned by
the applicant inasmuch as we do not find that the
applicant has sought for justification on the quantities
requisitioned after the impugned order was passed.
6. Mr. Shyamal Sarkar, learned Senior Counsel has referred
to paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment where the
submission of Mr. Sirsanya Bandyapadhyay was
3
summarized. It is submitted that there are many instances
where the allottees were unable to refill the cylinders as
they were unable to bear cost of refilling of cylinders.
7. The State has not challenged the order under appeal. It was
for the State to ensure supply of the required kerosene
quantity in consultation with the Ministry of Petroleum.
The State has, however, supported the applicant and has
submitted that all necessary details have been furnished to
the concerned Ministry justifying the quantities
requisitioned and for taking an appropriate decision in this
regard.
8. Be that as it may, it appears that a specialized body was
constituted to frame appropriate guideline and policy
regarding allocation of kerosene oil to State Governments.
In paragraph 12.1 of the impugned judgment the learned
Single Judge has refered to an assessment report on
survey of household cooking fuel usage and willingness to
convert to LPG of June 2016 by the Petroleum Planning
and Analysis Cell and other details with regard to LPG
coverage in the State of West Bengal vis-à-vis the
requirement of kerosene.
9. The court should be extremely charry in interfering with
policy decision and more so when it concerns the
environment as the pollution level is rising alarmingly and
a time would come when our existence would be at stake.
10. For all future requisition commencing from May the State
must make available all required data in justification of
kerosene requirement for each month and if any policy
4
decision is framed in the meantime, some guidelines
should be made by the Union of India in dealing with the
future requisition of the State as we cannot ignore the data
disclosed by the State in paragraph 7 and the affidavit of
the applicant referred to in paragraph 12.1 of the
impugned order.
11. It is obligatory on the part of the Union of India as well as
the State to ensure clean environment and to regulate
supply of Kerosene in such a manner so that the persons
who are likely to be affected if such quantities are reduced
drastically and withdrawn suddenly without considering
the welfare of such needy and poor persons as canvassed
by the State. Their need may also be considered and if
justified by the State the supply cannot be suddenly
stopped.
12. We make it clear that the arrangement is purely temporary
in nature and the State must send requisition adequately in
advance with justification to the respondent no.2 and the
decision with regard to supply shall be taken by the competent authority within a period of fortnight from the date of such requisition. The balance quantity as directed by the interim order shall be completed within a period of ten days from date.
13. We do not feel it necessary to go into other issues at this stage as it is a matter of Union of India and the State Government to take a decision with regard to allotment of kerosene depending upon the criteria, requirement and the policy in this regard.
5
14. We feel that in view of the aforesaid order, the appeal can be disposed of and is disposed of with the observation that the issues not gone into in this appeal shall not operate as resjudicata in future litigation if such issue comes up for consideration. This court has not adjudicated on the documents disclosed in the application for modification.
15. The appeal along with connected applications and the contempt application are, accordingly, disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
16. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Soumen Sen, J.) (Uday Kumar, J.)