https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196800 Prior guidelines framed for future discretionary allotments of petroleum and LPG/SKO dealerships did not validate earlier allotments already made, and public interest litigation could still examine their legality. Constructive res judicata and Order II Rule 2 were treated as inapplicable in this context because PIL is not governed by the same inter partes rigidity and the High Court had been directed to decide the pending challenges on merits. Individual notice and hearing to the affected allottees satisfied the purpose of Order I Rule 8. Post-allotment verification by the oil company could not cure an arbitrary ministerial exercise of discretion, and no equitable or prospective-protection principle was applied to save the allotments. en-us Fri, 19 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Dec 2017 14:25:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196800 Prior guidelines framed for future discretionary allotments of petroleum and LPG/SKO dealerships did not validate earlier allotments already made, and public interest litigation could still examine their legality. Constructive res judicata and Order II Rule 2 were treated as inapplicable in this context because PIL is not governed by the same inter partes rigidity and the High Court had been directed to decide the pending challenges on merits. Individual notice and hearing to the affected allottees satisfied the purpose of Order I Rule 8. Post-allotment verification by the oil company could not cure an arbitrary ministerial exercise of discretion, and no equitable or prospective-protection principle was applied to save the allotments. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 19 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196800