Delhi High Court declined PIL on LPG black marketing, directing petitioner to approach authorities. Bench led by Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Tejas Karia held issue falls within executive domain.
The Delhi High Court declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging widespread black marketing of LPG cylinders in the national capital, advising the petitioner to instead approach the appropriate government authorities.
The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, which chose not to exercise its jurisdiction in what it viewed as an issue falling primarily within the executive domain.
Factual Backgrounds:
The petition, filed by advocate Rakesh Kumar Mittal, was brought against the backdrop of concerns over alleged shortages of domestic LPG cylinders in Delhi. The petitioner claimed that cylinders ordinarily priced at around Rs 1,000 were being illegally sold for as much as Rs 5,000 in the black market, indicating a serious breakdown in supply regulation and enforcement mechanisms.
The plea also raised concerns about government policy, alleging that gas exports were continuing despite constraints in domestic availability, thereby exacerbating the situation for consumers.
Court’s Observation:
During the hearing, the Court took note of the nature of the allegations but expressed its reluctance to intervene in matters involving policy decisions and administrative management. The Bench observed that issues such as supply distribution, prevention of hoarding, and control of black marketing are inherently functions of the executive authorities.
It further noted that judicial directions in such areas may not always be practical or enforceable, particularly when they involve broad regulatory actions like eliminating illegal trade practices altogether.
Interestingly, the Court also referred to a recent instance of LPG shortage in its own canteen, noting that the issue had been promptly resolved, which indicated that authorities were actively addressing supply concerns. This observation reinforced the Bench’s view that the matter did not warrant judicial intervention at this stage.
ALSO READ: No Shortage of LPG: Attorney General Tells Supreme Court in Key Hearing
With regard to the allegation concerning continued export of gas, the Court made it clear that such decisions fall within the realm of economic and policy-making functions of the government. It reiterated that the judiciary cannot ordinarily interfere in such domains unless there is a clear violation of constitutional or legal provisions.
While dismissing the PIL, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation before the competent authorities and directed that any such representation be considered in accordance with law. This approach reflects the Court’s consistent stance that PIL jurisdiction should not be invoked in matters better suited for administrative resolution unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated.
The case also comes amid broader concerns about fuel availability in certain parts of the country in light of geopolitical developments, including tensions in West Asia. However, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) has clarified that there is “absolutely no shortage” of petrol and diesel in regions such as Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Ladakh, and Chandigarh, aiming to dispel public apprehensions regarding fuel supply disruptions.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES