Government restriction on diesel subsidy for large fishing boats upheld as reasonable to prevent misuse.

The High Court upheld the Government notification dated 1.10.2012, which restricted the subsidy on diesel for fishermen with boats over 20 meters. The Court found the policy changes aimed at preventing misuse of subsidies and ensuring accountability in distribution. The petitioner's argument of discrimination was dismissed, stating the restrictions were reasonable. The Court concluded that the petitioner's right to sell petroleum products was not infringed, leading to the dismissal of the petition due to lack of merit.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to Government notification dated 1.10.2012 as illegal, unlawful, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background of the Petitioner's Business:
The petitioner, a partnership firm running a petrol pump in Okha town since 1966, challenged a Government notification dated 1.10.2012. The notification pertained to the waiver of value-added tax on diesel for small fishermen with mechanized boats less than 20 meters in length.

2. Evolution of Government Policies:
Over the years, the Government introduced changes to the scheme for providing subsidies on high-speed diesel to fishermen. Notably, in 2003, a significant shift occurred where subsidies were directed to fishermen instead of distributors. The 2012 notification reverted to the original scheme, limiting the subsidy to fishermen with boats over 20 meters, with stringent requirements for registration and documentation.

3. Validity of the Notification:
The petitioner's counsel argued that the restrictions imposed by the 2012 notification were unreasonable and discriminatory, affecting the petitioner's business negatively. However, the Court observed that the Government's policy changes aimed to prevent misuse of subsidies and maintain control over the distribution of subsidized diesel to fishermen.

4. Discrimination and Policy Rationale:
The Court analyzed the policy changes made by the Government and concluded that the classification of allowing only recognized cooperatives to sell subsidized diesel did not amount to hostile discrimination. The stringent provisions were deemed necessary to prevent misuse of subsidies and ensure accountability in the distribution process.

5. Dismissal of the Petition:
Ultimately, the Court held that the Government did not err in issuing the impugned notification. The petitioner's right to sell petroleum products was not infringed, although they were restricted from supplying subsidized diesel to fishermen. The Court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's arguments against the notification.

6. Recognition of Cooperatives and Guidelines:
The petitioner raised concerns about the lack of guidelines for granting recognition to cooperatives. However, since the petitioner did not fall within the category eligible for recognition, the Court did not delve into examining this challenge, further solidifying the dismissal of the petition.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Government notification dated 1.10.2012, emphasizing the policy rationale behind the subsidy scheme for fishermen and dismissing the petitioner's challenge against the notification as lacking merit.

---