- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Prem Goyal v. Union Of India And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion arises from a Public Interest Litigation filed in June 2017 concerning the home delivery of refilled Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) cylinders in certain notified areas of Sikkim. The matter involves multiple respondents, including government departments and Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL). The Court has been monitoring the progress through various affidavits and reports filed by the respondents. The core procedural context involves the Court directing the parties to clarify and specify the areas where home delivery is feasible, the interpretation of Clause 9(e) of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000, and the fixing of additional charges for delivery in difficult terrains.
Legal Issues Presented
- What is the correct interpretation of Clause 9(e) of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000, particularly regarding the obligation of distributors to make home deliveries and the State Government’s power to fix additional charges?
- Which specific areas in the notified Class II, Class III Bazaar, Rural Marketing Centres, and Municipalities are suitable for home delivery of LPG cylinders?
- How should additional charges for home delivery in difficult geographical terrain be fixed and by whom should these charges be borne?
- What measures should be taken to ensure effective implementation of home delivery services for LPG cylinders in the State of Sikkim?
Arguments of the Parties
Respondents No. 2 and 3
- Filed a reply indicating, in consultation with the State Level Coordinator of IOCL, that home delivery of LPG cylinders is proposed to be possible in certain notified Class II, Class III Bazaar, Rural Marketing Centres, and seven Municipalities.
- Their affidavit lacked specifics, failing to enumerate exact locations where home delivery could be made or not made, and reasons for such exceptions.
Respondents No. 4 to 7
- Submitted an affidavit referencing a letter dated 05-08-2019 from the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, which interprets Clause 9(e) of the Order of 2000 as allowing distributors to dispense with home delivery and empowers State Governments to fix additional charges for home delivery based on terrain and distance.
Respondents No. 10 to 17, 19 and 20
- Filed affidavits including Annexure A1, a letter dated 19-03-2019 from the Director (LPG), Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, which states that no distributor shall refuse home delivery without prior written permission, and that State Governments may fix additional charges considering geographical terrain or distance.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court identified an anomaly in the interpretation of Clause 9(e) of the Order of 2000 between the affidavit of Respondents No. 4 to 7 based on the 05-08-2019 letter and the provisions outlined in Annexure A1 filed by other respondents. The Court emphasized that the dispute centers on the obligation to deliver LPG cylinders to consumers' homes and the role of the State Government in fixing additional charges for delivery in difficult terrain. Recognizing the lack of clarity and consensus among the parties, the Court found the affidavits filed by Respondents No. 2 and 3 insufficiently detailed regarding the areas where home delivery is feasible. The Court noted the prolonged delay and inconclusive reports since the PIL was filed in 2017 and expressed concern over the authorities’ shirking of their legal responsibilities. Consequently, the Court directed the parties to hold a joint meeting to reach a consensus on delivery areas, delivery points, and additional charges, adhering strictly to Clause 9(e) of the Order of 2000.
Holding and Implications
The Court issued the following directions, constituting its holding:
- The Petitioner and all Respondents shall hold a joint meeting within ten days to reach consensus on specific locations where home delivery of LPG cylinders can be made.
- They shall agree on areas where home delivery cannot be made due to geographical terrain and fix delivery points for such areas.
- The State Government shall fix additional rates for home delivery in difficult terrain and specify who shall bear these costs.
- The parties must adhere to Clause 9(e) of the Order of 2000 in their deliberations and submit a final consolidated report in affidavit form.
- If consensus is not reached by the next date, the Court will issue binding directions regarding home deliveries, delivery points, additional charges, and cost bearers.
Implications: This decision directly compels the parties to clarify and finalize arrangements for home delivery of LPG cylinders in Sikkim, ensuring compliance with statutory provisions. It underscores the Court's intolerance for delay in public interest matters but does not establish new legal precedent beyond the interpretation and enforcement of Clause 9(e) of the Order of 2000 within the facts of this case.
Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.:— In compliance with the Order of this Court, dated 22-02-2020, a reply has been filed by the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, dated 13-03-2020 to I.A. No. 11 of 2019 of the Respondent Nos. 10 to 17, 19 and 20, dated 02-11-2019.
2. It is stated in the response that in consultation with the State Level Coordinator, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL), it is now proposed that home delivery of refilled Liquefied Petroleum Gas/Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) cylinders is possible in the notified Class II, Class III Bazaar and Rural Marketing Centres notified by the Urban Development and Housing Department vide Notification No. T(1403)UD&HD/TOP/E/2019/88, dated 02-02-2019, and 7 (seven) Municipalities, enumerated in the report.
3. Vide Order dated 16-03-2020 ante, it was inter alia ordered that this Court would deliberate on the Affidavit dated 13-03-2020 filed by the Respondent No. 3, Food and Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, Government of Sikkim, on the next date fixed.
4. Thereafter, the Order of this Court dated 02-06-2020 ante reflects that the Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 sought three weeks' time to file Affidavit to indicate the stand of the IOCL in respect of Clause 9(e) of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000 (hereinafter, Order of 2000). Accordingly, the said Respondents have filed their Affidavit on 25-06-2020.
5. In the Affidavit, dated 25-06-2020, Respondents No. 4 to 7 have inter alia submitted that letter dated 05-08-2019 [Annexure 2 (colly)], issued by the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, Government of India, stipulates that Clause 9(e) of the Order of 2000 provides for dispensing with home delivery by a distributor of OMCs and also provides for State Government to fix additional charges for home delivery of LPG cylinders to the consumers, as it may deem necessary in view of the geographical terrain and/or the distance in the area of distribution.
6. Annexures A1 and A4 had been filed by Respondents No. 10 to 17, 19 and 20 in their Affidavit dated 02-11-2019 in I.A. No. 11 of 2019. Annexure A1 is a letter addressed to the Chief Secretaries of State Governments and Union Territories by the Director (LPG), Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, dated 19-03-2019, which at Paragraph 2 reads as follows;
“2. Attention is drawn to the clause 9(e) of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution), Order, 2000 states that “No distributor shall, without prior written permission of the concerned Government Oil Company, refuse to make home delivery at the address of the consumer, as registered with the distributor. Provided that the State Government may, fix additional charges for home delivery of LPG cylinders to the consumers, as it may deem necessary in view of the geographical terrain and/or the distance in the area of the distribution”.”
7. There is, therefore, an anomaly in the interpretation of Clause 9(e) of the Order of 2000 as reflected in the Affidavit of Respondents No. 4 to 7 dated 25-06-2020 based on the letter dated 05-08-2019 of the Government of India and the provisions of Clause 9(e) of the Order of 2000 as reflected in Annexure A1 filed by the Respondent Nos. 11 to 17, 19 and 20.
8. In view of the above circumstance, the Respondent No. 1 shall clarify on the next date by filing a report on the interpretation of Clause 9(e) of the Order of 2000 made in the correspondence dated 05-08-2019.
9. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length.
10. After hearing Learned Additional Advocate General and on perusal of reply of the Respondents No. 2 and 3, dated 13-03-2020, in I.A. No. 11 of 2019, we are of the considered opinion that the Affidavit of the Respondents No. 2 and 3 lacks in specifics as it fails to enumerate the areas of Class II, Class III Bazaar and Rural Marketing Centres and 7 (seven) Municipality areas, where home deliveries are viable. The State-Respondents shall file a better Affidavit specifying in detail the exact locations where home delivery can be made as also the delivery points where home delivery is not possible and reasons thereof.
11. We deem it essential to point out that this is a Public Interest Litigation and thereby not adversarial litigation. The only point for consideration herein, bearing in mind Clause 9(e) supra is the delivery of the LPG cylinders to the homes of the consumers and in the event of inability to make such delivery on account of the geographical terrain or distance, the responsibility rests with the Government to fix additional charges for such delivery.
12. The State Government is yet to reach a decision in this context, in addition to which a decision is also to be arrived at with regard to additional charges for home delivery in difficult terrain and whether it will be borne by the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Respondent Nos. 4 to 7, Respondent Nos. 10 to 17, 19 and 20 or the consumer.
13. This PIL was filed in June, 2017 and since then has been meandering with parties tying themselves in knots by filing one inconclusive report after another. We are constrained to observe that the concerned authorities are shirking the responsibility thrust on them by law.
14. Consequently, it is now apposite to issue the following directions;
(i) The Petitioner and all the Respondents shall hold a joint meeting within a period of 10 (ten) days from today to reach a consensus on the specific locations of the areas where home delivery of the LPG cylinders can be made.
(ii) They shall also reach a consensus regarding the areas where home delivery cannot be made in view of the geographical terrain and fix a delivery point for the area.
(iii) The State Government shall fix the additional rates and specify as to who shall bear the additional costs for home delivery in difficult terrain.
(iv) While doing so, the parties shall bear in mind the provisions of Clause 9(e) of the Order of 2000, adhere to it and submit a final consolidated report.
(v) The report may be a joint report or individual reports in affidavit form.
15. Should the parties fail to reach a consensus by the next date, this Court shall be constrained to issue directions pertaining to home deliveries, deliveries at various points, additional rates of deliveries in difficult terrain and parties who shall bear the additional charges, as this Public Interest Litigation cannot be kept pending in perpetuity due to the lackadaisical attitudes of the concerned parties.
16. Let Respondent Nos. 10 to 17, 19 and 20, file response to the report of the Respondents No. 4 to 7 dated 25-06-2020, as sought, within two weeks.
17. List on 17-07-2020 as found convenient by the parties.
Alert