Delhi High Court Declines PIL on LPG Shortage, Says Issue Falls Within Executive Domain

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) alleging black marketing and an acute shortage of LPG cylinders in the national capital, holding that such matters fall squarely within the domain of the executive and are not amenable to judicial directions.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia made it clear that courts cannot pass directions that are inherently impractical or incapable of enforcement.

The Bench observed that issuing a general order to curb black marketing or ensure uninterrupted supply of LPG cylinders would be difficult to implement on the ground.

During the hearing, the Chief Justice remarked that such directions would be akin to asking the government to eliminate complex socio-economic issues within a fixed timeframe an exercise that is neither realistic nor judicially manageable.

The Court emphasised that questions relating to supply, distribution, and pricing of essential commodities involve policy decisions, resource allocation, and administrative mechanisms that fall within the executive’s expertise.

The PIL was filed by Advocate Rakesh Kumar Mittal, who alleged that LPG cylinders, typically priced at around Rs. 1,000, were being sold in the black market for over Rs. 5,000.

He also pointed to a reported shortage of cylinders in the High Court canteen and claimed that the government was allowing export of gas despite domestic scarcity.

Addressing these concerns, the Bench noted that the issue of supply at the High Court canteen had already been resolved, indicating that authorities were responsive to the situation.

Justice Karia observed that when the government is actively taking remedial steps, the Court cannot step in to issue a writ of mandamus, as judicial intervention is warranted primarily in cases of clear inaction or failure of duty.

On the allegation regarding export of gas, the Court reiterated that economic and policy decisions are beyond the scope of judicial review unless they are shown to be arbitrary, unconstitutional, or in violation of statutory provisions.

It underscored that courts are not equipped to second-guess such decisions, which involve complex considerations including national demand, supply chains, and international obligations.

The Bench also highlighted an important principle of constitutional law that the judiciary must respect the separation of powers.

While courts play a crucial role in safeguarding rights and ensuring legality, they cannot assume the functions of the executive by directing how resources should be managed or distributed.

In disposing of the petition, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate government authorities with his grievances.

It directed that any such representation be duly considered and decided in accordance with law.

The ruling reinforces judicial restraint in matters involving administrative and economic policy, while also clarifying that remedies for such issues primarily lie within the executive framework rather than through court intervention.

Case Title: Rakesh Kumar Mittal v. Union of India & Ors.