- (1.) The petitioner would refer to the policy which was issued though a gazette notification on 2.7.1992 providing for reservation of 25% to SC/ST and making further provision for diluting the requirement of offer of land and buildings for locating the LPG facilities. The policy took note of the fact that the dealers/distributor under the SC/ST found it difficult to arrange funds required for commissioning of the distributorship and as a consequence, the allottees were forced to enter into arrangements with wealthier persons resulting in becoming only nominal owners. The consideration, therefore, yielded to the following result. "The LPG distributorship complete in all respects will be provided to the SC/ST allottees by the Oil Industry and, therefore, the oil companies will make provision for the following facilities to such allottees: (i)1. Land & its development 2. Godown Buildings 3. Delivery System. 4. Office-cum-Sale Room. (ii) Appropriate working capital The Oil Industry will recover Rupees one per cylinder towards the company's investment. The entire working capital for the operation of the distributorship will be provided by the Oil Industry at 11 per cent p.a. rate of interest recoverable in hundred monthly installments commencing from the 13th month of operation of the distributorship. The scheme will come into force with immediate effect." Admittedly, this operated for sometime but for the advertisement notification which was issued in August, 2013, the provision regarding the entire absorption of cost for infrastructure by the oil companies was withdrawn and a new policy spelt out that made difficult to any person who belonged to SC/ST with no adequate financial support to even make an application. The petitioner would explain the fact that she had not applied within the date was only because of the fact that the conditions brought out in the brochure required the petitioner, who was a SC, to provide for a minimum total amount of Rs. 5 lakh for urban markets and Rs. 2.5 lakh for urban-rural and rural markets as closing balance as the last date of submission of application. The petitioner's grievance is that the deposit of the amount as well as further requirement of identification of property as a pre-requisite for giving the application literally undermined the policy spelt out through the gazette notification and kept the person, such as the petitioner, who was financially weak away to compete for allotment. The 2013 brochure requirement as regards the property qualification was that the candidate should own as on the last date as specified in the advertisement. The expression 'own' has been defined as having ownership as title of the property as under:- "'Own' means having ownership title of the property or registered lease agreement for minimum 15 yrs in the name of applicant/family member (as defined in multiple distributorship norm of eligibility criteria) as on the last date for submission of application as specified in the advertisement or corrigendum (if any). In case of ownership/co-ownership by family member (s) as given above, consent in the form of a Notarized Affidavit from the family members) will be required." The petitioner has no property to offer before hand and this new condition brought in the brochure which is at variance with the policy spelt out through gazette notification is bad in law.
(2.) There are two objections taken by the petitioner as being in conflict with the policy decision issued by the Union through the department of Petroleum industries, namely, assignment of 25% reservation for SC/ST applicants and provision for financial assistance for establishing necessary infrastructure including the land and building for locating the LPG cash distributorship.
(3.) The counsel for the respondents explains that the percentage of 25% was reduced to 22-1/2%, since additional reservation was made to the extent of 25% for the OBC and, therefore, a marginal reduction in percentage of reservation for SC/ST to be undertaken. Even with regard to the financial assistance, the original policy providing for the Corporation to identify the property and establish the infrastructure and later collect the investment cost over 100 installments was given up only because of the difficulty in securing the property by the oil companies themselves. The petitioner on his part would explain difficulty in identifying the property and taking on lease before hand when there was no sure guarantee for allotment that would render the policy of assistance even in the altered situation to be unworkable.;