ORDER M. Katju, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri W.H. Khan and Dr. R.G. Padia for the respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of certtorari quashing the selection held on 25.5.2001 for S.K.O./L.D.O. Dealership of Indian Oil Corporation at Chopan, district Sonbhadra and to quash the selection of respondent No. 6 to the said dealership.
3. A large number of points have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner but it is not necessary for us to go into all these as in our opinion this petition deserves to be allowed on the very first point, namely, that the respondent No. 6 was Member of the Advisory Committee of Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Central Government, New Delhi and hence the selection was an act of favouritism in his favour. This allegation has been made in paragraph 6 of the writ petition and is admitted by the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 has, however, alleged that the dealership can be granted in favour of a Member of Parliament and there is no bar for this vide Onkar Lal Bajaj v. Union of India, (2003) 2 SCC 673.
5. We do not dispute that Member of Parliament can be granted dealership. What we find objectionable is that the respondent No. 6 is not only a Member of Parliament but also Member of the Advisory Committee of Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Central Government, New Delhi and thus naturally was in a position to influence the grant of the dealership.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 Dr. R. G. Padia submitted that the dealership was not granted in the discretionary quota but after regular selection by a committee consisting of responsible persons. We do not wish to comment upon how these so-called responsible persons have been behaving in our society as these facts are well known to every one. Suffice it to say that we are of the opinion that a person who is a Member of the Advisory Committee of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Central Government, New Delhi, is disqualified for getting the dealership as he is in a position to influence the officials of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited and other officials in the Ministry.
7. It is a tragic fact that standards of public life have gone down in recent years in our country. To maintain public confidence and transparency such standards have to be restored so that there is transparency in the matter and the public can have confidence. There is no transparency and there will be no public confidence in grant of dealership in favour of a person who is a Member of the Advisory Committee of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Central Government which has overall hold on the Corporation. Technically no doubt the Indian Oil Corporation Limited is a distinct legal entity, but the fact, remains that the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Central Government, New Delhi, is in a strong position to influence the decision of the Corporation officials and hence we have to see the substance of the matter rather than merely going by the form.
8. For the reasons given above we quash the selection of S.K.O./L.D.O. Dealership in favour of respondent No. 6 and we direct the Corporation to now proceed for a fresh grant of the dealership in question in accordance with law expeditiously.
9. The petition is allowed. No order as to costs.