- (1.) THOUGH no application seeking condonation of delay has been filed but, having regard to the circumstances of the case, delay of 68 days in filing this review petition is ignored.
(2.) HOWEVER , after having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, we are unable to find even a wee bit of reason to entertain this review petition, filed in relation to the order dated 23.01.2012 as passed by a Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 06/2012 whereby the intra-court appeal filed against the order dated 20.09.2011 as passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10441/2010 was dismissed after finding it to be an entirely baseless and rather frivolous a matter. The substance of the matter remains that in the writ petition aforesaid, the petitioner, said to be an association of the persons who are the authorised dealers of the Oil Marketing Companies ('OMCs') such as Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited ('HPCL'), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ('BPCL') and Indian Oil Corporation Limited ('IOCL') and are engaged in sale of petroleum products, came up with a challenge to the advertisements dated 04.08.2010 and 29.08.2010 issued by the respondents, i.e., the OMCs, for award of different retail outlets to the selected applicants at the defined places. The petitioner put forward its challenge before the Court on the ground that while issuing such advertisements, the respondent OMCs had proceeded in breach of the condition and guidelines issued by the Ministry of Petroleum of Government of India. It was also contended that allotment of so many retail outlets will cause the loss not only to the respondent OMCs but also to the intending dealers. It was also submitted that the allotment of so many retail outlets will not only congest the outlet market but will also cause severe competition to the present dealers. 3. The learned Single Judge of this Court, after considering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner-association and so also on behalf of the Union of India and OMCs, found the writ petition to be rather a camouflage to prevent possible competition by other retail outlets. The learned Single Judge was satisfied that the petition was not only misconceived but frivolous too; and proceeded to dismiss the same while observing that the existing outlet dealers were not entitled to enjoy the cake and eat it too with the exclusion of others. The learned Single Judge observed that it was to be left only to the wisdom of the concerned OMCs to allot the outlets as per their business requirements and on their business prudence; and such factors could not possibly be examined by the Court in the writ jurisdiction. Further, the learned Single Judge found nothing of arbitrariness in the decision making process so as to call for interference; and proceeded to dismiss the writ petition while imposing exemplary costs of Rs. 10,000.00, to be paid to each of the respondents.
(3.) THE contentions were reiterated on behalf of the petitioner- appellant before a co-ordinate Bench in the intra-court appeal (SAW No. 6/2012) filed against the order so passed by the learned Single Judge. In its order dated 23.01.2012, the Division Bench considered all the relevant aspects of the matter and found that the reliefs as claimed by the petitioner-association were not available to be granted in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; and further observed that the Court cannot be converted into an appellate policy maker, over and above the State policy makers. The co-ordinate Bench proceeded to observe, inter alia, as under:- "No-one can invoke the extra ordinary powers and jurisdiction of the High Court to tell the Government to enact a particular policy for distribution of their larges in a particular way or particular manner because the writ petition feels it to be so. It is neither the province of any individual nor body of individuals because it does not fall within the four-corners of judicial arena. If the court at the instance of one set of individuals entertains their grievances then tomorrow another set of few will approach the court with their suggestions and grievances in relation to same issue. It will be then unending scenario. The courts cannot be converted into appellate policy makers over and above the State policy makers. Indeed the law on this issue remains no more resintegra and settled by several decisions of the Supreme Court wherein their lordships have cautioned the courts to keep restraint in exercising their powers while entertaining such issues and in particular where policy of government is under challenge." ;