Non-discrimination in diesel allotment: authorised private outlets must be treated on par with other approved suppliers under the exemption scheme.

A welfare exemption scheme for sales tax exempt diesel authorised three supply channels for fishermen, and the governing orders required authorities to assess actual need, issue indents and prevent misuse, not rank authorised outlets differently. The Court stated that, in the absence of express sanction in the Government Orders, the Fisheries Department could not impose a discriminatory monthly ceiling that favoured Government-owned or cooperative outlets over duly authorised private bunk operators. Executive control remained limited to regulation and anti-misuse measures, and could not extend to arbitrary denial of supply to otherwise eligible authorised dealers. The writ petitions were therefore allowed, and the petitioners were to be processed on par with other authorised outlets subject to the prescribed ceiling and conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether authorised private diesel outlets supplying sales tax exempt diesel to fishermen under the Government Orders were entitled to be treated on par with Government-owned outlets and cooperative outlets in allotment of quota; and whether the Fisheries Department could impose a discriminatory restriction in the monthly indent without support in the Government Orders.

Analysis: The exemption scheme under G.O. Ms. No. 170 and G.O. Ms. No. 130 was framed to ensure supply of tax-free diesel to fishermen through the three authorised channels named in the orders, namely, TNFDC, TAFCOFED and authorised private bunk operators. The express memo and subsequent departmental directions showed that the function of the authorities was to assess actual requirement, issue indents, monitor utilisation and prevent misuse, not to create a hierarchy among authorised outlets. No clause in the Government Orders authorised a differential ceiling that would systematically favour Government outlets over duly authorised private dealers. A committee recommendation restricting private outlets could not override the Government Orders or justify denial of supply when the petitioners were otherwise authorised and eligible. The distinction drawn by the State was therefore held to be unsupported by the scheme and arbitrary. The authorities retained a regulatory power to prevent misuse, but not a power to discriminate among authorised outlets without legal basis.

Conclusion: The restriction on the petitioners' allotment could not be sustained, and the petitioners were entitled to be considered for supply of sales tax exempt diesel on par with other authorised dealers, subject to the limits and conditions in the Government Orders.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded, and the authorities were directed to process indents and supply sales tax exempt diesel to the petitioners without discrimination, in accordance with the governing Government Orders and subject to the prescribed annual ceiling.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a welfare exemption scheme authorises multiple categories of outlets for distribution, executive authorities may regulate implementation but cannot impose discriminatory restrictions between duly authorised outlets unless such differentiation is expressly sanctioned by the governing instrument or law.

---