This Court then heard the allottees as well as the Government of India and in Onkar Lal Bajaj v. Union of India1 it was observed that the news item and subsequent news items in the Indian Express made a specific reference to 413 allegedly tainted dealership or distributorship allotments.
Soon thereafter, transfer petitions were filed to transfer the cases pending in various High Courts to this Court.
The allotment of dealerships in respect of the State of Bihar was companysidered by this Court Mukund Swarup Mishra v. Union of India3 in the light of the Report given by the Committee.
Decision of the High Court The writ petition filed by Sunita Kumari was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court by his judgment and order dated 15th April, 2009.
7186 of 2008 next in the list of selected candidates for the SKO LDO dealership in Warisnagar.
It was held therein that the allotment made to Neelam Kumari was number on merits but for extraneous companysiderations.
By the impugned judgment and order dated 10th February, 2011 the Division Bench dismissed the appeal of IOC and upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge.
Neelam Kumari Smt.
As a result the allotment made in her favour stood cancelled.
These transfer petitions were allowed and the writ petitions taken up for companysideration.
The Committee examined the records of the allotments made and also heard the aggrieved parties and submitted its Report to this Court.
The panel was as follows Smt.
The news item implied that the allotments were number on merits but on account of political companysiderations to favour the allottees.
In her writ petition, Sunita Kumari claimed that since she was the second ranked selected candidate, the SKO LDO dealership should be awarded to her after the cancellation of Neelam Kumaris dealership.
After companysidering all aspects of the case, this Court appointed a Committee of two retired judges to examine these 413 allotments and determine, on a preliminary examination of the facts and records, if the allotments were made on merits and number as a result of political companynections or patronage or other extraneous companysiderations.
The appointment was reserved for women belonging to Scheduled Castes and was for Warisnagar, District Samastipur Bihar .
It is under these circumstances, that the present appeal has companye up before us.
Following the cancellation of the allotment in favour of Neelam Kumari, a writ petition was filed by Sunita Kumari in the Patna High Court being CWJC No.
307 of 2010 was preferred by the IOC before the Division Bench of the Patna High Court.
Objections were filed to the Report and they were companysidered and rejected in Mukund Swarup Mishra v. Union of India.2 This Court also companysidered the allotment of dealerships made in respect of some States and passed appropriate orders.
The case was then adjourned for taking up the allotments made in other States including the State of Bihar.
Sunita Kumari respondent number1 herein Kumari Anju Chaudhary Sometime in the beginning of August, 2002 a news item appeared on the front page of the Indian Express to the effect that all over the companyntry, a large number of dealerships or distributorships were allotted in respect of several petroleum products to persons close to political functionaries.
Feeling aggrieved by the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge, a Letters Patent Appeal being LPA No.
The news item resulted in a public outcry and on 5/9 August, 2002 the Government of India passed an order cancelling all allotments for dealerships in petroleum products with effect from 1st January, 2000 including of SKO LDO dealerships.
The blanket cancellation led to a spate of writ petitions being filed all over the companyntry since several thousand allottees were affected.
Madan B. Lokur, J. Leave granted in S.L.P. Civil No.
The facts On 10th July 2000, an advertisement was issued by the appellants, that is, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. for short IOC for the appointment of dealers for superior kerosene oil and light diesel oil SKO LDO .
While allowing the writ petition the learned Single Judge held that Sunita Kumari was entitled to be treated as the first empanelled candidate upon the cancellation of the dealership in favour of Neelam Kumari.
Several applications appear to have been received in response to the advertisement and on 24th July, 2001, a panel of selected candidates was prepared by the IOC in order of merit.
