Wednesday, Nov 13, 2002
Wednesday, Nov 13, 2002 |
| Front Page | ||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | Front Page
By J. Venkatesan
A Bench, comprising Justice Y.K. Sabharwal and Justice H.K. Sema, posted for December 11 for final hearing all petitions challenging the Government's notification. In the meantime, the Bench asked the Solicitor-General, Kirit Raval, to identify the allotments ``exposed by the media'' and mention before the court for including them for hearing along with the 11 representative cases (transferred from a batch of petitions filed before various High Courts) decided in the apex court's order on August 28. The court, while staying the Centre's notification, had directed the Government to return the cancelled allotments to the dealers within two weeks. It said that `status quo' order would be applicable to 2248 cases where the dealerships and agencies were commissioned. Today, the Bench made it clear that it would not modify its August 28 order but asked counsel for the parties to consult Mr. Raval to include some more `representative cases' to be included for hearing and asked the parties to file their replies and rejoinders by December 11. When the Bench wanted to know from Mr. Raval whether the Government had examined the files before taking the decision to cancel the allotments, he said a policy decision of this nature would not have been taken without some examination. He, however, said he had no knowledge of the kind of examination done by the Government. Justifying the decision, he made it clear that the Government was ready to face any kind of inquiry and judicial examination to prove its bona fides. He said ``what the Government has done was it cancelled all allotments. There would have been some cases which would have been allotted fairly''. In an obvious reference to `Satish Sharma's case', the Bench observed that ``those were stereotype allotments without any application of mind''. And they were even made because some were from a particular constituency. But, the Bench noted that ``in those allotments also we found some to be done fairly and we segregated them from those which were allotted without any basis''. In its affidavit, the Centre submitted that a controversy arose in a section of the media on the allotment of petrol pumps and gas and kerosene dealerships, and the proceedings of Parliament were stalled for several days. The Government said that to maintain its clean image, it considered various options and decided to cancel all the allotments to restore the people's confidence in the selection process. Further, such a measure was taken without any desire to favour or harm somebody and without any ulterior motive. The Government also submitted that a compensation package would be evolved and implemented by the oil company to the allottees after they legally established the investments made by them on the advice of the oil company. Contending that the petitioners had no legal right which could be enforced, the Centre prayed for upholding the August 9 notification and dismissal of all the petitions pending in various High Courts.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | Home |
Copyright © 2002, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|
