The Hindu : PM's contention of `public interest' rejected by SC

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Sunday, Dec 22, 2002

National

National

PM's contention of `public interest' rejected by SC

By J. Venkatesan

NEW DELHI Dec. 21. The Supreme Court, while quashing the Centre's August 9 notification, cancelling all the allotments made in respect of petrol pumps, kerosene and gas outlets, rejected on Friday the contention that the Prime Minister, in taking such a decision, was motivated by "public interest".

A Bench comprising Justice Y.K. Sabharwal and Justice H.K. Sema said the expressions "public interest" or "probity in governance" could not be put in a straight jacket.

The circumstances in each case would determine whether the Government action was taken in public interest or was taken to uphold probity in governance.

The Bench was of the view that the role model for governance, and the decision taken thereof, should manifest equity, fair play and justice.

The cardinal principle of governance in a civilised society based on rule of law not only had to be on transparency but also should create an impression that the decision-making was motivated on the consideration of probity.

Further, the Bench observed that the act of governance had to withstand the test of judiciousness and impartiality and avoid arbitrary or capricious actions and decided on the touchstone of justice, equity and fair play.

The decision might look legitimate but as a matter of fact, if the reasons were not based on values but to achieve popular accolade, then that decision could not be allowed to operate.

The Bench also pointed out that the "guidelines" of allotment provided for a mechanism to look into the complaint made against selections.

In respect of 360 complaints made against chairmen/members of the Dealer Selection Boards (DSBs), it was found after enquiry that there was no substance in 242 complaints; 39 were sub judice; cancellation had been recommended in 27 cases and 45 referred to the Petroleum Ministry for its decision on various grounds.

Therefore, the Bench held that the contention of the Government that the cancellation of allotments was made to uphold probity in governance and in the larger public interest was clearly an afterthought, besides being untenable even otherwise.

Here the controversy raised was in respect of 5 to 10 per cent of the allotments and in such a situation, en masse cancellation would be unjustified and arbitrary.

The controversy could not be resolved or put to rest by burying it under the carpet by cancelling all allotments by treating unequals as equals, the Bench said.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National