Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rahul Ashok Sonalkar, applied for an LPG distributorship in Sangola, District Solapur, Maharashtra. Respondent No. 5 was selected and allotted the distributorship. However, due to a news item in the Indian Express and criticism in Parliament, the Government of India decided to cancel all allotments made with effect from January 2000. The Prime Minister directed the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas to cancel the allotments, and a formal order was issued on 9.8.2002 cancelling all allotments, including that of Respondent No. 5. Several petitions were filed in various High Courts, which were transferred to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in Onkarlal Bajaj v. Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 673, set aside the order of termination except for some allotments, and appointed a committee to examine those cases. Subsequently, in Mukund Swarup Mishra v. Union of India (2007) 2 SCC 536, the Supreme Court considered the committee's report and passed orders. In that case, the Supreme Court rejected applications by non-allottees (like the petitioner) and directed that only allottees could approach the committee. The petitioner, who was not a party to the Supreme Court proceedings, filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his application for allotment. The High Court held that the petitioner was not an allottee and had no locus standi to seek relief after the Supreme Court's final order. The court noted that the Supreme Court had already dealt with the issue and directed that only allottees could approach the committee. The petitioner could not seek reconsideration of the allotment process. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner's remedy, if any, was to approach the Supreme Court, not the High Court.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Res Judicata - Binding Nature of Supreme Court Orders - Petitioner not a party to earlier Supreme Court proceedings - The petitioner, a non-allottee, challenged the cancellation of LPG distributorship allotment. The Supreme Court in Mukund Swarup Mishra v. Union of India had already considered the issue and directed that only allottees could approach the committee. The High Court held that the petitioner cannot seek reconsideration as he was not a party and the Supreme Court's order is binding. (Paras 2-6) B) Administrative Law - LPG Distributorship - Cancellation of Allotment - Government Policy - The Government of India cancelled all LPG distributorship allotments made after January 2000 due to criticism. The Supreme Court set aside the cancellation except for some cases and appointed a committee. The petitioner's case was not covered by the Supreme Court's directions. (Paras 2-4) C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Locus Standi - Non-allottee cannot challenge allotment after Supreme Court's final order - The petitioner was not an allottee and had no locus to seek relief after the Supreme Court had already decided the matter. The High Court dismissed the petition. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, who was not a party to the proceedings before the Supreme Court, can seek reconsideration of the allotment of LPG distributorship after the Supreme Court had already dealt with the matter and directed that only allottees could approach the committee.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner was not an allottee and had no locus standi to seek relief after the Supreme Court's final order. The court directed that the petitioner's remedy, if any, is to approach the Supreme Court.
Law Points
- Res judicata
- binding nature of Supreme Court orders
- locus standi of non-allottees
- finality of judicial decisions
