In Brief
A petitioner sought a court direction for an independent CBI investigation into petroleum product adulteration and unlawful multiple dealerships allegedly operated by an individual, and requested direct subsidy transfer for kerosene beneficiaries. The Supreme Court disposed of the petition, holding that factual determinations regarding dealership violations require impleading the oil companies concerned and cannot be made under Article 32. The Court found that anti-adulteration measures and quality control are policy matters within the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas's discretion, which has implemented regular inspections, disciplinary guidelines, and automation initiatives. The petition was disposed as matters of policy had been adequately addressed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.