S P KHAIRIWAL Vs. SECRETARY UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Shri S. P. Khariwal has filed a complaint under Sections 10 (a) (1), 36b (a) and 36a (5) read with Sec.2 (o) (ii) of the MRTP Act, 1969, (the Act for brief) assailing the new Tatkal Scheme under which anybody can apply for LPG connection provided he makes non-refundable deposit of Rs.4,000/-. His grievance is that although he applied for LPG connection in 1993, he is still waiting for his turn and he will continue to wait and not get it now that a new scheme for out-of- turn connection has been introduced and according to this scheme priority will be given to those who are in a position to give non-refundable deposit of Rs.4,000/-. He has further complained that poor people like him will not be able to avail of this scheme due to their inability to pay Rs.4,000/- as non-refundable deposit and will thus be deprived of gas connection.

(2.) This scheme for out-of-turn allotment was challenged in the High Court of Kerala as well as the High Court of Delhi. It was clarified while the public interest litigation challenging the scheme was taken up for hearing that the scheme had been approved by the Central Government and only 10% of the gas connections released in a particular year would be given under the Tatkal Scheme and the balance 90% would be released under the ordinary scheme on the basis of registration or application. The public interest litigation petitions were dismissed as unsustainable and that there were no grounds to interfere with the scheme.

(3.) We have heard both the learned Senior Advocates for the respondents and me learned Advocate for the DG. It was pointed out by the learned Senior Advocate for the respondent that since the orders of the High Courts were binding on the Commission, the present complaint should be dismissed as not maintainable in the light of the order of the High Court of Delhi in CWP 950/ 97 in M/s. South Delhi House Wives' Association V/s. Union of India and Others dated the 1st October, 1997. It was further stated that the present complaint was also not maintainable in view of the fact that the scheme in question had been authorised and approved by the Central Government and the gateway under Sec.38 (1) (i) of the Act would render the alleged restrictive trade practices not prejudicial to public interest. We are of the view that the orders of the High Courts are binding on the Commission and further in view of Sec.38 (1) (i) of the Act the present complaint is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed.