Case: Handigas Dealers, Distributors & Consumers Association & Others Vs. Union of India & Others

1. This writ petition was filed in the year 1998 invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Art.32 of the Constitution demanding an enquiry through CBI into what was alleged to be a scam or large scale fraud indulged in by influential persons of a business family which resulted in hundreds of middle and lower class persons being deprived of their small savings for the recovery whereof they would not be able to approach the civil courts inasmuch as if they were to have recourse to the ordinary remedy of filing civil suits for recovery, it might have taken endless time and yet they might not have got any relief as they would have been pitted against powerful persons and maybe the cost of litigation would have gone much beyond the stakes involved and the relief which would ultimately have been allowed by the courts.2. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioners is like this. Olympia Gas (P) Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 commenced the industrial and business activity of filling and distributing of liquid petroleum gas. This and Associated Cylinder Industries (P) Ltd. (Respondents 9 and 10) are the subsidiaries of Malkotra Troika Group. All these are owned by a single business house belonging to Ranjit Malhotra, Respondent 10. Attractive advertisements on large scale were inserted in newspapers which resulted in a number of small investors belonging to lower and middle class making deposits for having LPG connections. Dealers and distributors were appointed who also made the deposits with Respondents 9 to 12. However, the project did not see the light of day. The consumers, dealers and distributors all lost their deposits, each running into small sums but yielding several crores to Respondents 9 to 12.3. In the writ petition, there are 8 petitioners. Petitioner 1 is an association formed by various consumers, dealers and distributors. Petitioners 2, 3, 4 and 5 are individual consumers. Petitioners 6 and 7 are distributors. Petitioner 8 is an association of the distributors in South India.4. The primary relief sought for in the writ petition was to have an enquiry conducted through CBI so as to expose the corruption at high levels without which the petitioners could not have been duped into parting with the money. On notices being issued, several intervention applications were filed.5. On the appearance of Respondents 9 to 12 on 24-4-2000, the Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, directed as under: "We direct Respondents 9 - 12 to file complete list of distributors, dealers and consumers for supply of gas and the amount received from them. The said respondents shall furnish details of the assets of their Company as well as of the Directors including the statement of bank accounts as on today. The said respondents shall not transfer, alienate or part with any of the assets, excluding the stock intrade, till the matter comes up for hearing. In the meantime the petitioner may also furnish list of such distributors, dealers and consumers who had taken supply of the gas." 6. The petitioners filed details of the claims which were due and payable by the respondents to them. The respondents were allowed time for verifying the correctness of the claims.7. It appears that better sense prevailed with Respondents 9 to 12 who came out with an offer to amicably settle the claims of the petitioners by filing a scheme of payment/settlement.8. In this process, it was found that there was some dispute as to the exact amount as to which the petitioners could be held entitled and the respondents could be held liable to pay. As there were certain factual issues which were to be gone into, we requested by order dated 21-7-2003 Mr Sunil Gupta, Senior Advocate to assist the Court as amicus and also intervene to settle the dispute between the parties as also to suggest a scheme of payment by holding a meeting with all those who may be concerned.9. The learned amicus curiae first prepared and submitted to the Court a compilation of tabular charts and supporting documents titled as "Consolidated Statements of the Claims" of the petitioners. The tabular charts sought to tabulate the admitted (undisputed) and disputed amounts between the parties under the aforementioned four heads viz. distributor deposit, trade balance, security deposit and rent. Copies of the compilation were also given to the respective counsel. The counsel for the respondent submitted a response to the consolidated statement taking certain objections to the same. Thereafter, on 3-2-2004 an order was passed directing that the parties may sit together with the amicus and "sort out the discrepancies". Accordingly, the parties attended meeting called by the amicus and put forth their respective contentions before him. Consequently, the amicus prepared and submitted to this Court his report dated 13-10-2004 wherein he recorded that the petitioners have not pressed their claim under the head, rent, and he also recorded his conclusions with regard to the moneys due from the respondents to the petitioners under the other three heads of distributor deposit, trade balance and security deposit.10. When the said report came up for consideration by the Court, the parties did not express any objection to the same and, therefore, it can safely be said that the findings recorded by the amicus in respect of the monetary claims of the petitioners under the aforesaid three heads enjoy the status of consensus arrived at by the parties in regard to the said monetary claims.11. However, on 25-10-2004, the Court asked the learned amicus to convene a meeting with the parties again and also make his suggestions on three remaining points, namely: (i) The 800 - odd additional cylinders lying with the petitioners which remain to be returned to the respondents.(ii) Interest, if any, payable by the respondents to the petitioners on the amounts due.(iii) The payment schedule to be followed by the respondents. In pursuance of the said order, the learned amicus again held a meeting on 11-12-2004 and after hearing the parties filed an addendum dated 11-1-2005 to his earlier report dated 13-10-2004. No objection was taken by the respondents to any of the other suggestions made by the amicus in the addendum on the aforementioned three remaining points. The petitioners also expressed no objection to any of the suggestions made in the addendum. It can safely be inferred that the suggestions made by the amicus on the aforementioned three points also enjoy the status of consensus arrived at between the parties.12. Since largely and substantially the parties have arrived at a consensus both as regards the monetary claims and the three remaining points, it is possible to cut short the controversy and make directions for giving effect to the report dated 13-10-2004 and the addendum dated 11-1-2005 submitted by the amicus with the modifications incorporating the Courts view on the two aspects of the Court Commissioner and the rate of interest. 13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and during the said hearings also the learned amicus has remained present to assist the Court.14. We are of the opinion that the principal relief asked for in the petition seeking directions for investigation by CBI is not an appropriate relief to be granted in the facts and circumstances of the present case for it may be difficult to record a clear finding as to criminal activity designedly having been entered into by Respondents 9 to 12. Maybe it was an ambitious adventure which turned out to be a misadventure and hence failed. Respondents 9 to 12 are inclined to make payments in the terms settled by the learned amicus and we feel that the solution suggested by the learned amicus is most reasonable and ought to be accepted. The learned counsel for the petitioners as also for Respondents 9 to 12 are agreeable to do so.

Decision reasoning: 1[ds]14. We are of the opinion that the principal relief asked for in the petition seeking directions for investigation by CBI is not an appropriate relief to be granted in the facts and circumstances of the present case for it may be difficult to record a clear finding as to criminal activity designedly having been entered into by Respondents 9 to 12. Maybe it was an ambitious adventure which turned out to be a misadventure and hence failed. Respondents 9 to 12 are inclined to make payments in the terms settled by the learned amicus and we feel that the solution suggested by the learned amicus is most reasonable and ought to be accepted. The learned counsel for the petitioners as also for Respondents 9 to 12 are agreeable to do so.