Holding

The grant of diesel subsidy to bulk consumers is a matter of governmental privilege and not a legal right, and the decision to withdraw such subsidy is a policy decision not amenable to judicial review.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined writ petitions filed by Indian Oil Corporation and several state road transport corporations challenging the Government of India's decision to cease diesel subsidies for bulk consumers. The petitioners argued that the withdrawal of subsidy was arbitrary, violated Article 14, and would impair the transport corporations' ability to provide public services. The Court held that a subsidy is a fiscal privilege granted by the government, not a legally enforceable right, and therefore can be withdrawn at any time. Consequently, the policy decision to end the subsidy was not arbitrary, discriminatory, nor violative of constitutional principles, and is not subject to judicial review. The Court dismissed the writ petitions and the appeals, ordering no costs.

Issues considered

The validity of the Government of India's policy decision to withdraw diesel subsidy for bulk consumers.
Whether the withdrawal of subsidy violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether the transport corporations have a legal right to continue receiving the subsidy.
Whether the policy decision is amenable to judicial review.

Legislation cited

Electricity Act, 1948s. 49

Subjects

subsidyfiscal policyjudicial reviewadministrative lawArticle 14diesel pricingbulk consumersgovernment privilegeexemptionpublic service

Judgment

[2017] 14 S.C.R. 507

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED & ANR. ' A
v.
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPGRATION & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.18917 of2017)
NOVEMBER07, 2017 B

[ARUN MISHRA AND .
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.]
Administrative Law - Policy Decision - . Withdrawal of
subsidy - Govermnen( of India decided not to make the payment of C
subsidy to the bulk consumers of diesel - Validity of - Writ
applications filed in Kera/a and other States claiming decision of
the Government of India was arbitrary and that it would make
difficult for the State Road Transport Corporations to render. its
services to the public at large - It was also cOntended that it was
obligatory on the part of the Respondents/Government of India to D
provide maximum concession/subsidy/benevolence in the matter of
sale of diesel to the Transport Corporations - Held: The grant of
subsidy is a matter of privilege, to be extended by the Government -
It cannot be claimed as of right - No writ lies for extending or
continuing the benefit of privilege in the form of concession - E
Subsidy is a matter ojjiscal policy - Such privilege can be withdrawn
at any time - It was open to the Government of India to take decision
to withdraw the subsidy enjoyed by the hulk consumers - Further.
even for the purpose of public services, Transport corporations
cannot claim subsidy as of right that Government of India or the
State Government should continue or grant the subsidy - It cannot F
be claimed as a matter of right; no such right exists to claim the
subsidy - Thus. the decision of Government of India not to extend
subsidy to bulk consumers of diesel could not be said to be an
arbitrafy-deeision, ·discriminatory or in violation of the principles
contained in Art.14 of the Con~·titution - Such policy decision not G
amenable to judicial review - Court cannot interfere in such
matte1~~ - Rights and Privileges.

Disposing of the appeals and transferred cases, the Court
HELD: 1. Firstly, coming to the issue of the policy framed
by the Government of India; the grant of subsidy is a matter of H
507
508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.

A privilege, to be extended by the Government. It cannot be claimed
as of right. No writ lies for extending or continuing the benefit of
privilege in the form of concession. Subsidy is the matter of fiscal
policy. Such privilege can be withdrawn at any time. Thus, it was
open to the Government of India to take a decision to withdraw
B the subsidy enjoyed by the bulk consumers; and, it was a decision
based upon the aforestated rationale to direct funds for social
welfare scheme for common man and that by grant of subsidy, the
Oil Marketing Companies (OMC) had suffered heavy losses, and
had borrowed excessive money. Thus, it was decided by the
Government of India, not to the extend subsidy to bulk
C consumers; same could not be said to be an arbitrary decision,
discriminatory or in violation of the principles contained in Article
14 of the Constitution of India. Such policy decisions are not
amenable to judicial review. [Paras 16, 17] [515-D-G]
2. There is no merit in the submissions raised that subsidy
D should have been continued as an exception for the State Road
Transport Corporations, though they may have been rendering
public service. However, for the purpose of such public services,
corporation cannot claim as of right that Government of India or
the State Government should continue or grant the subsidy. It
. cannot be claimed as a matter of right; no such right exists to
E claim the subsidy. The Court cannot interfere in such matters.
[Para 20] [517-D]
State of Rajasthan V. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. (2004) 7
SCC 673 : [2004] 4 Suppl. SCR 812; Shree Sidhbali
Steels Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2011) 3
F SCC 193 : [2011] 3 SCR 134; Ayurved Shastra Seva
Manda/ & Am: v. Union of India & Ors. (2013) 16 SCC
696 : [2013] 4 SCR 1098; Madras City Wine Merchants·
Association & Am: v. State of T.N & Anr. (1994) 5 SCC
509 : [1994] 2 Suppl. SCR 281; Har Shankar & Ors.
G v. The Dy. Excise & Taxation Commissioner & Ors.
(1975) 1 SCC 737 : (1975] 3 SCR 254 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2004] 4 Suppl. SCR 812 referred to Para 17
[2011] 3 SCR 134 referred to Para 18
H
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED v. KERALA STATE 509
ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

[2013] 4 SCR 1098 referred to Para 19 A
[1994] 2 Suppl. SCR 281 referred to Para 19
[1975) 3SCR254 referred to Para 19
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 18917
of2017.
B
From the final Judgment and Order dated 21.03.2013 of the High
Court ofKcrala at Emakulam in W.P. (C) No.7517 of 2013.
WITH
T.C. (C) Nos. 40-43, 46, 44, 45, 39, 58, 62, 63 and 61 of2014
Ci vii Appeal Nos.19545 and 19546 of2017 c
Tushar Mehta, Subramonium Prasad, AA Gs, Amit Meharia, Ms.
Tannishtha Singh, Ms. Ayushi Gupta, Ms. Aishwariya Kuhar, Akhil
Aggarwal, S.N. Bhat, Pradhuman Gohil, Vikash Singh, Ms. Taruna Singh
Gohil, Himanshu Chaubey, Radha Shyam Jena, T.R.B.. Sivakumar, B.
Balaji, C.S.N. Mohan Rao, B. Ramana Murthy, Pradeep Misra, Suraj D
Singh, Advs. for the Appellants.
A.K. Sanghi, V. Giri, Sr. Advs., Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, Ms. Sweta
Garg, Raj Bahadur, Mis Meharia & Company, Nishc Rajen Shanker,
Ms. Anu K. Joy, Abdul Kabeer, Deepak Prakash, Subhash Chandran
K.R., Ms. Yammi, Ranecv Dhiya, Advs. for the Respondents. E
The following Order of the Court was passed:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The issue involved in the present matter(s) is with respect to F
the validity of the policy decision taken by the Government oflndia.
3. Writ Petition (Civil) No.7517 of2013 was filed in the High
Court ofKerala at Emakulam. The prayer made in the writ petition is as
follows:
G
I. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the
diesel price hike introduced as per Ext.P 1 to the Kerala State
Road Transport Corporation, compelling the petitioner to pay
enhanced rate than while purchasing diesel from private or other
diesel bunk, is wholly arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unconstitutional
and violative of Article 12 and 14 of the Constitution of India; H
510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.

A (ii) Issue any appropriate order commanding the 1" respondent
to withdraw the dual pricing policy of diesel introduced as per
Ext.Pl or in the alternative accord exemption to the petitioner,
from the category of bulk consumer, and treat the petitioner as a
retail customer for the purpose of diesel purchasing.

B (iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction commanding the respondents to refund the
excess diesel charge collection in pursuance to clause (b) of
Ext.P 1, with interest at the treasury rate, with effect from
17.01.2013 to the petitioner, forthwith.

c 4. The Ministry of Petroleum, Government of India, had taken a
decision not to make the payment of subsidy to the bulk consumers on ·
purchase of diesel. Consequently, the bulk consumers were required to
make the payment, which was a little higher than what was being paid
by the retailers. The said decision was questioned in the various writ
applications filed in different High Courts.
D
5. It was averred in the writ application, that Kerala State Road
Transport Corporation had been duly established and formed on
01.04.1965, and that it had 6108 buses, operating 5855 schedules per
day. An average of 35 lakh passengers used the services provided by
the petitioner, the average daily collection was ofRs.4.48 crores. The
E corporation presently has 30,132 permanent employees and around
10,000-temporary/ provisional/ impaneled employees. Since petitioner is
an establishment functioning without profit motives_, with a social obligation
to render maximum service to the public, it extended free traveling
services to the physically differently abled persons, freedom fighters,
F journalists, press/media reporters, MLAs (Members of Legislative
Assembl.y) and M.Ps. (Members of Parliament). Thus, the total number
of free passes issued so far was 52,666.
6. The first respondent in the Writ Petition-Government ofindia,
through the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, issued direction
G dated 17'h January 2013 in which, it was observed, that sale of diesel, to
all consumers taking bulk supplies directly from the installations of the
Oil Marketing Companies (for short "the OMCs"), be made at the non-
subsidized, market-determined price, with immediate effect. The OM Cs
would not be eligible for any subsidy on such direct sale of diesel to bulk
consuniers. Thus, the petitioner claimed, that the respondent No. I has
H meted out discrimination as against the Kerala State Road Transport
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED v. KERALA STATE 511
ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

Corporation in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution oflndia. The A
corporation was purchasing diesel in bulk, with the daily consumption of
diesel being 4, 10,000 litres, and was suffering a loss ofRs.18/- crores in
a month, with the annual estimated loss ofRs.216/- crores.
7. In other States as well, writ applications were filed more or
less on similar grounds. In some States, an interim stay was granted. B
The decision of the Government ofindia was claimed to be arbitrary
and that it would make rendering service to the public at large difficult.
There was no nexus to be achieved by the aforesaid policy decision. It
was also obligatory on the part of the State Government to provide a
subsidy. It was obligatory on the part of the first respondent to provide C
maximum concession/subsidy/benevolence in the matter' of sale of diesel
to the State Road Transport Co1voration. The respondents have ignored
their constitutional obligation, It would make very difficult, the payment
of pension to the pensioners, and salary to the existing employees. Prayer
was made to direct the Respondent No.1 to withdraw the dual pricing
policy of diesel that had been introduced; in the alternative, to accord D
exemption to the writ petitioners from the category of bulk consumer, ·
treating them as a retail customer for the purposes of diesel purchasing.
8. The stand of the Government of India is that the policy has
been made after due deliberations. In the year 2002, the Admi1iistered
Pricing Mechanism for petroleum products was dismantled, with the E
decision that the pricing of all petroleum products, except those of PDS
· Kerosene and Domestic LPG, would be market-determined. However,
the Government ofindia did not allow a full de-control of the price of
Diesel and continued to regulate the same. The OMCs incurred under-
recovery on sale of diesel and other regulated products due to non-
revision of prices in line with the international prices. By 2007, the F
combined borrowing of the OMCs was Rs.48,430/- crores due to the
under-recoveries made from the sale of subsidized petroleum products.
Despite measures having been taken, the continued incurrence ofunder-
recovcries by the OM Cs has adversely affected their financial and
liquidity position, compelling them to borrow heavily from the market. G
9. In the year.2009, the Government oflndfa appointed an Expert
Group under the Chairmanship of Dr. Kirit S. Parikh, to advise on a
viable and sustainable system of pricing of petroleum products, and also
to examine the impact of an increase in the price of diesel. The Expert
Group did not find compelling reasons to subsidize the petroleum products. H
512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.

A The recommendations of the Expert Group were examined in detail and
then placed before the Empowered Group of Ministers.
10. On 26.06.2010, the Empowered Groups ofMinisters (For short
"the EGoMs") decided, that the price of petrol was to be made market-
determined by Government of India, and the same would be for both, at
B Refinery Gate and at the Retail level. However, in order to insulate the
common man from the impact of the rise in oil prices in the international
market, and in view of the domestic inflationary conditions, the
Government of India continued to modulate the Retail Selling Prices of
Diesel. Several steps were taken. On March 2012, Industry Performance
Review was conducted and, it was observed, that around 17.77% of the
c total diesel sale in India was directly made to the bulk consumers,
including Railways and State Transport Undertakings. It was further
observed, that on 31.12.2012, the combined borrowings of the OMCs
was of Rs. i ;6!1,948 crores, to sustain the under-recoveries made from
the sale of subsidized petroleum products.
D 11. In view of the foregoing circumstances, Government ofindia,
in its meeting dated l 7'h January 2013, decided to deregulate the prices
of diesel in a phased manner, and to sell diesel, to all bulk consumers,
including State Transport Undertakings, at market-determined non-
subsidized prices. The Government of India through the Ministry of
E Petroleum and Natural Gas published a letter, bearing reference No.P-
200012/22/2012-PP, inter a/ia, authorizing the OMCs to effect the
following change effective from the midnight of l 7th/l 8'h January 2013.
The rationale given by the Government ofindia is as follows:
Increase the retailed selling prices of diesel in the range of 40-50
F paise per liter per month (excluding VAT as applicable in different
States/Union territories) until further orders.
Sell diesel to all consumers taking bulk supplies directly from the
installations of the Oil Marketing Companies (for short "the
OMCs") at the non-subsidized market-determined price with
immediate effect. The OM Cs will not be eligible for any subsidy
G
on such direct sale of diesel to bulk consumers.
Revise annual cap on the subsidized domestic LPG cylinders
from 3 to 5 for the period from 14.09.2012 to 31.03.2013 and
from610 9w.ef 01.04.2013. This will be subjectto the condition
that no refunds will be admissible on any LPG domestic cylinders
H
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED v. KERALA STATE 513
ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

already supplied to LPG consumers at the non-subsidized price A
during the period from 14.09.2012 to date.
12. This National Policy, it is urged on behalfofthe Government
oflndia, came after deliberations for over a decade. !twas not sudden
or arbitrary. The primary objective behind the saic\ National Policy for
pricing reforms, undertaken by the Government of India, was the growing B
imperative for fiscal consolidation and the need for reducing subsidy
burden on petroleum products, so as to allocate inore funds to social
sector schemes for the common man, and for ensuring the country's
energy security in the long term. Failure to do so would have an adverse
impact on the fiscal deficit, resulting in a downward spiraling effect on
the economy, with consequential significant adverse impact on the C
common man.
13. The rationales behind the introduction ofNational Pricing Policy
from 18'h January 2013 are:
I. Pricing of sensitive petroleum products such as Diesel, PDS D
Kerosene, and Domestic Subsidized LPG is done in a transparent
manner by OMCs. Jn fact, the price build-up of sensitive products
is in public domain and hosted on the website of PPAC. In the
context of pricing of sensitive products, it may be noted that
more than 90% of the cost of production of a refining company
is the cost of crude oil, which is linked to international oil prices. E
Over 80% of the Country's crude oil requirement is met through
imports. Consequent to the deregulation of the Refining Sector
w.e.£ 1" April 1998, domestic refineries arc totally exposed to
the vagaries of the international oil market and are not
compensated in any form whatsoever based on their costs of F
refining activity. Further, the price ofindigenously produced crude
is also based on the price of crude oil in the international oil
market. Accordingly, since the cost of production of an Indian
refining company is based on actual costs of imports, the Refinery
Transfer Prices for the finished products supplied at the refinery
gate are also required to be detennincd on the principles ofhnport G
Parity, with linkages to the prices for the respective products in
the international oil market.
ii. After dismantling ofAdministrative Price Mechanism, the retail
selling prices of petroleum products except for PDS Kerosene
and Domestic LPG were deregulated. Initially, the OMCs carried H
514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.

A out revision in p1iees of Petrol and Diesel in line with international
prices. However, in view of the high increase in oil prices in
international market since 2004 onwards, the Government of India
started regulating the retail selling prices of Diesel and Petrol.
despite the increase in the international prices since 2004-2005,
the selling prices of these products, including Diesel, were being
B
maintained at lower levels in order to insulate domestic consumer
from the impact ofrising in international oil prices and the domestic
inflationary conditions. It was in June 2010 that the Petrol prices
were deregulated and Government of India also stated its intent
that HSD shall be made market-determined in a phased manner.
c iii. Since the OMCs procure the controlled petroleum products
from the domestic Refineries at Refineries Transfer Price based
on Import/Trade Parity principles, the desired basic selling prices
for these products are determined based on the weighted average
Refineries Transfer Price plus costs and margins as approved
D by Government of India. The difference between the Desired
Basic Selling Prices (in line with the price for the concerned
product in the international oil market) vis-a-vis the Actual Basic
Selling Prices (maintained as per the of the Government du~ to
socio-economic reasons) of the controlled petroleum products
leads to "Under-Realizations" to the PSU OM Cs. The total under-
E
realizations incurred by PSU OMCs on controlled petroleum
products and Share of Diesel in total under-recovery since 2004-
05 is tabulated below:
(Rs. in crore)

F Year Under-realisations Under-realizations Share of
on sensitive on Diesel Diesel in
petroleum total under-
products realisations
(%)
2004-05 20,146 2,154 11
... -·····-···-······· ...... ·---·---·-··-···---···-···-··-··-···-··-·-··-..--·-· .. --.-·-·----·-·-··-··--·-···-··-·-· -·--··-·- -----·--·-·-·-·-·-·-
G 2005-06 40,000 12,647 32
2006-07 49,387 18,776 38
2007-08 77,123 35,166 46
2008-09 1,03,292 52,286 51
2009-10 46,051 9,279 20
H
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED v. KERALA STATE 515
ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

--- ·- ·-
.~

A
2010-11 78, 190 34,706 44
2011-12 1,38,541 81,192 59
2012-13 1,24,854 73,815 59

iv. The continued incurrence of under-recoveries, at one stage
will create a situation where OMCs would not be in a position to B
maintain supplies of petroleum product in the country.
14. This court has transferred to itself all the writ petitions that
had been pending before various High Courts and has stayed the interim
orders, which were passed by the High Courts. It was observed that in
such policy matter no interim orders could have been passed by the c
High Courts.
15. We are concerned now with respect to the validity of policy
and the payment for interregnum period in which, intc1im stay had been
enjoyed by the bulk consumers. The learned counsel for the parties have
supported aforesaid stand. D
· 16. Firstly, coming to the issue of the policy framed by the
Government oflndia; the grant of subsidy is a matter of privilege, to be
extended by the Government. It cannot be claimed as ofright. No writ
lies for extending or continuing the benefit of privilege in the form of
concession. Subsidy is the matter of fiscal policy. Such privilege can be
E
withdrawn at any tirric is the settled proposition of law. Thus, it was
open to the Government of India to take a decision to withdraw the
subsidy enjoyed by the bulk consumers; and, it was a decision based
upon the aforestated rationale to direct funds for social welfare scheme
for common man and that by grant of subsidy, the OM Cs had suffered
heavy losses, and had borrowed the excessive money to the extent F
indicated in the aforesaid paragraphs. Thus, it was decided by the
Government of India, not to the extend subsidy to bulk consumers; same
could not be said to be an arbitrary decision, discriminatory or in violation
of the principles contained in Article 14 of the Constitution oflndia.
17. Such policy decisions are not amenable to judicial review. In G
State of Rajasthan v. .J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. (2004) 7 SCC 673,
this Court has observed that exemption is a privilege. In fiscal matters
the concession granted by the State Government to the beneficiaries
cannot confer upon them legally enforceable right against the Government
to grant a concession, except to enjoy the benefits of the concession
H
516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.

A during the period of its grant. Enjoyment is defcasible one and can be
taken away in exercise of very power under which such exemption was
granted. This Court observed :
"25. An exemption is by definition a freedom from an obligation
which the exemptee is otherwise liable to discharge. It is a
B privilege granting an advantage not available to others. An
exemption granted under a statutory provision in a fiscal statute
has been held to be a concession granted by the State Government
so that the beneficiaries of such concession are not required to
pay the tax or duty they arc otherwise liable to pay under such
statute. The recipient ofa concession has no legally enforceable
c right against the Government to grant of a concession except to
enjoy the benefits of the concession during the period of its grant.
This right to enjoy is a dcfcasiblc one in the sense that it may be
taken away in exercise of the very power under which the
exemption was granted. (Sec Shri Baku/ Oil Industries v. State
D o.f Gujarat (1987) 1 SCC 31, Kasinka Trading v. Union of
India (1995) I SCC 274 and Shrijee Sales C01poration v.
Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 398)."
18. Similarly, this Court in Shree Sidhhali Steel~ Ltd. v. State of
Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (201 l) 3 SCC 193 with respect to rebate has
E observed that it is a privilege granted in the form of an advantage .
Concession granted by the State Government under section 49 of the
Electricity Act, 1948 could be cnjoyeq during the period of its grant. It
was defeasjble one and was liable to be taken away or withdrawn the
way in which it was granted. The Court observed :

F "48. From the principle enunciated in the abovcmcntioncd decision
in Udaipur Udyog case (2004) 7 SCC 673, there is no manner
of doubt that the rebate which was granted to the Petitioners,
was. by definition, a freedom from an obligation which the
appellants otherwise were liable to discharge. The rebate was a
privilege granting an advantage which was not made available
G to others. The rebate granted under Section 49 of the Electricity
(Supply) Act of 1948 was, therefore, a concession granted by
the State Government so that the beneficiaries of such
concessions were not required to pay the electricity tariff they
were otherwise liable to pay under the said Act during the period
of its grant. The petitioners. as recipients of a concession,
H
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED v. KERALA STATE 517
ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

accepted to enjoy the benefits of the concession during the period A
of its grant. This right to enjoy was a defensible one in the sense
that it was liable to be taken away or withdrawn in exercise of
the very power under which the exemption was granted."
19. This Court in Ayurved Shastra Seva Manda! & Am: v. Union
of India & Ors. (2013) 16 SCC 696 held that the privilege granted to B
candidates in the matter of education could not be transformed into a
right. In Madras City Wine Merchants 'Association & Am: v. State of ·
T.N. & Anr. (1994) 5 SCC 509, this Court observed that a privilege
exists during the period it is operative or its validity and not beyond it. In
Har Sha11kar & Ors. v. The Dy. Excise & Taxation Commissioner &
Ors. (1975) 1 SCC 737 it was held that when a matter is that of privilege, c
it cannot be enforced as a right.
20. Th!fs, we find no merit in the submissions raised that subsidy
should have been continued as an exception for the State Road Transport
Corporations, though they may have been rendering public service.
However, for the purpose of such public services corporation cannot D
claim as of right that Government of India or. the State Government
should continue or grant the subsidy. It cannot be claimed as a matter of
right; no such right exists to claim the subsidy. The Court cam1ot interfere
in such matters.
21. However, with respect to the State ofKcrala, we find that in E
the interim order, that was passed before transfer of case to this Court,
the State of Kcrala has undertaken to reimburse the deficit amount to
respondents Nos.2 and 3 in the event of the writ petition being dismissed
ultimately; the same was recorded by the High Court: -
"The balance of convenience will be in favour of granting F
an interim order as it will be impossible to reimburse the excess
collected from the traveling public in the event ofthe writ petition
being allowed eventually. The State Government on the other
hand guarantees to reimburse the deficit amount to respondents
2 and 3 in the event of the writ petition being dismissed ultimately G
and the same is recorded".
22. With respect to other states, suffice it to observe that it would
be open to the respective parties to work out equities as may he
considered appropriate by them, otherwise payment has to be made by.
the bulk consumers to the Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs).
H
518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.

A 23. It was also stated in the matters of the State ofKarnataka and
State of Tamil Nadu, that there was no interim order and the concerned
Transport Corporations of the States have incurred no liability. The
statement is placed on record.
24. The writ petitions deserve dismissal and they are hereby
B dismissed. The appeals, as well as transferred cases, are accordingly,
disposed of. No costs.

Ankit Gyan Matters disposed of.