Disposed¶31

Devender Kumar Gautam v. UOI

Delhi HC15 Jan 2025W.P.(C)/4823/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court oral disposition of 32-year-old writ W.P.(C) 4823/1994 (CM APPL. 8703/1994, 5708/1995, 979/1997): petrol pump / retail outlet dealership allotment grievance against Union of India (Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas); Dealer Selection Boards dissolved 09.05.2002; APM dismantled 01.04.2002; allotments transferred to Oil Marketing Companies IOCL, BPCL, HPCL under their own Dealer Selection Guidelines; affidavit dated 11.11.2024; reliefs held ungrantable; withdrawal permitted with fresh liberty; petition disposed, pending applications closed. Judge: Tara Vitasta Ganju. No statutes or precedents cited; no quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the Petition with liberty to take appropriate steps for redressal of the grievance in accordance with law; all pending Applications closed. ¶31

Devender Kumar Gautam Vs UOI — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Permission to withdraw the Petition with liberty to take appropriate steps for redressal of the grievance in accordance with law; all pending Applications closed.

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the reliefs sought in the Petition — allotment of a petrol pump by Respondent No.1 and remedy for the challenge to the selection board — remain capable of being granted, given that the Dealer Selection Boards were dissolved and allotment of retail outlet dealerships now rests with the Oil Marketing Companies.

¶10

Court's answer

Given the affidavit filed by Respondent No.1, the reliefs sought by the Petitioner cannot be granted in the present Petition.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions, was granted permission to withdraw the Petition with liberty to take appropriate steps for redressal of her grievance; the Petition was disposed of on that basis and all pending Applications were closed.

¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(C) 4823/1994 (decided 15.01.2025, High Court of Delhi, Tara Vitasta Ganju, J., oral): Petitioner Devender Kumar Gautam had sought allotment of a petrol pump by Respondent No.1 (Union of India / Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas) and had challenged a selection board established by that Ministry in the 1990s. Learned counsel for the Respondents informed the court that, following dismantling of the Administered Pricing Mechanism (APM) effective 01.04.2002 and dissolution of the Dealer Selection Boards (DSBs) vide Ministry letter dated 09.05.2002, allotment of retail outlet dealerships now lies wholly with the Oil Marketing Companies (IOCL, BPCL, HPCL), leaving the Ministry with no discretion; an affidavit dated 11.11.2024 to this effect was relied upon. On that basis the court held the reliefs sought could not be granted; permission was given to withdraw the Petition with liberty to pursue redressal afresh in accordance with law. Petition disposed of; pending applications closed.

¶1

$~20

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of Decision: 15.01.2025

¶4

- W.P.(C) 4823/1994, CM APPL. 8703/1994, CM APPL. 5708/1995 & CM APPL. 979/1997

¶5

DEVENDER KUMAR GAUTAM .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Shashi Kiran, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Sangeeta Bhalla, Adv. versus

¶6

UOI

¶7

.....Respondent Through: Ms. Meera Bhatia, Adv. with Mr. Devender Kumar Gautam

¶8

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶9

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral)

¶10

The grievance of the Petitioner as articulated in the prayers of the present Petition is that the Petitioner was not allotted a petrol pump by the Respondent No.1. The challenge by the Petitioner was also to a selection board as established by the Respondent No.1 in 1990s.

¶11

Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that so far as concerns the prayers in the present Petition, the same have become infructuous. The allotment of petrol pump is now under the purview of Oil Marketing Companies and not under the Respondent No.1/Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. It is further submitted that after the Administered Prising Mechanism (APM) was dismantled on 01.04.2002 by the Respondent No.1, the allotment of marketing and distribution of petrol pumps including that of allotment of retail outlet dealerships has been left to the Oil Marketing Companies and the Respondent No.1/Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas

¶12

Signature Not Verified

¶13

Page 1 of 3

¶14

W.P.(C) 4823/1994

¶15

Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Da te:2 0.01.2025 16:35:56

¶16

has no discretion whatsoever on the allotment of retail outlets like petrol pumps.

¶17

Learned Counsel for the Respondents further submits that with effect from 09.05.2002, the Dealer Selection Boards (DSBs), which previously existed for selection, were dissolved.

¶18

Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits thus, that given the pendency of this matter, the present Petition has become infructuous. In this regard, an affidavit dated 11.11.2024 has also been filed by the Respondent No.1. The relevant extract of the affidavit is below:

¶19

“5. That the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas vide letter No. 9011/12/2001-IOC(Pt) dated 30.03.2002 directed that the Dealer Selection Boards (DSBs) shall complete the dealer selection process by 30.09.2002 in respect of only those locations where the advertisements have been issued by oil marketing companies till 31.03.2002. Relevant content of the letter has been reproduced below:

¶20

"It has been decided by the Government that in view of dismantling of the Administered Pricing Mechanism (APM) with effect from 1.4.2002 the Dealer Selection Boards (DSBs) shall continue selections of dealers/distributors for - marketing companies (OMCs) only for those locations where the advertisements have been issued by oil marketing companies till 31.3.2002. The concerned DSBs shall complete the Dealer Selection process for all such locations by 30.9.2002. Thereafter, the DSBs shall wind up operations within 14 days of the last interview. In this time all files that are with the DSBs shall also be returned to the OMCs for further necessary action.

¶21

6. That the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas vide letter No.19011/12/2001-IOC(Pt) dated 09.05.2002 decided to dissolve the Dealer Selection Boards (DSBs) forthwith. Relevant content of the letter has been reproduced below:

¶22

" ... it has been decided by the Government to dissolve the Dealer Selection Boards (DSBs) forthwith. The Dealer Selection Boards (DSBs) are accordingly hereby dissolved with immediate effect instead of 30.09.2002 as informed

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

W.P.(C) 4823/1994

¶26

Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Da te:2 0.01.2025 16:35:56

¶27

earlier."

¶28

7. That it is submitted that Oil Marketing Companies i.e. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (IOCL) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd (BPCL) and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) enjoy commercial freedom in the matter of marketing and distribution of petroleum products through their respective networks of retail outlet dealerships and the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas has no role to play in day-to-day functioning relating to commercial activities of the Oil Marketing Companies including allotment of retail outlet dealerships. Further. it is submitted that Oil Marketing Companies, for the selection of retail outlet dealership are guided by the applicable Dealer Selection Guidelines framed by them. ”

¶29

Given the affidavit filed by Respondent No.1, the reliefs as sought for by the Petitioner, cannot be granted in the present Petition.

¶30

Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions, seeks and is granted permission to withdraw the present Petition with liberty to take appropriate steps for redressal of her grievance.

¶31

The present Petition is accordingly disposed of in the aforegoing terms. All pending Applications stand closed. The liberty as sought for is so granted albeit in accordance with law.

¶32

The parties shall act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.

¶33

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J

¶34

JANUARY 15, 2025/jn/ ha Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Page 3 of 3

¶37

W.P.(C) 4823/1994

¶38

Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Da te:2 0.01.2025 16:35:56

Devender Kumar Gautam v. UOI

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devender Kumar Gautam v. UOI

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pragati Defence Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Hyderabad Cable Digital Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs Zee Entertainment Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

Sewa Ram Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.

Sanrok Enterpreses Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 28 (1) Delhi

Prakash Industries Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 30, Delhi & Anr.

M/S Royal Security Services Vs Jaipal Singh and Ors.

Fci Handling Workers Union Vs UOI & Anr.

Rajesh Gomes Vs New Delhi Municipal Council (Ndmc) and Ors.

Satya Prakash & Sons & Anr. Vs M/S Narain Kumar & Sons (Huf)

S. Vaikundarajan Vs Union of India and Anr.

Raj Kumar Vs Geeta Mittal and Ors.

Ranvir Singh (Now Deceased) through His Legal Representative & Ors. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Sh Deep Pal Singh & Ors. Vs Ram Dulai Bhutani

Kundan Lal (Since Deceased ) through Lrs. Vs Poonam Jain