Bombay High Court dismisses pleas challenging Centre's disinvestment of BPCL [Read Order]

The Bombay High Court recently dismissed four pleas challenging Central Government decision for the in-principle disinvestment of its shareholding in the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd (BPCL)..The Bench of Justices SC Gupte and Madhav Jamdar observed that there was neither any legislative incompetence nor a breach of fundamental rights involved while dismissing the pleas.."The policy decision is an informed decision; it cannot be termed as an arbitrary or capricious decision; and it does not offend any constitutional or statutory provisions. If that is so, it is no remit of this Court to interfere with it in its writ or PIL jurisdiction."Bombay High Court.The lead plea was filed by the Federation of all Maharashtra Petrol Dealers Association challenging the validity of the repeal of the Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1976..The accompanying Public Interest Litigations raised apprehensions concerning the effect of the disinvestment policy decision on BPCL employees..Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai, appearing for the Federation, contended that the original acquisition of the Burmah Shell cannot be disinvested without specific legislative approval for disinvestment..He relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Centre for Public Interest Litigation's case to argue that there must be a parliamentary approval to. the disinvestment and not a mere Act of repeal followed by an executive decision to disinvest..The Court, however, opined that “a repeal is but a repeal” and that courts cannot question the motive behind such repeal.."It is not open to courts to scrutinise whether such removal was simply on the ground that the original statute had become obsolete or whether such removal was actually informed by the parliament’s tacit approval of a possible disinvestment which may follow as a result of the repeal. The Courts also cannot fault the legislation itself or parliament's wisdom behind it on the ground that it ought to have been informed by such approval or that the parliament did not apply its mind to the aspect of such approval or the effects, including a possible disinvestment, which might follow it", reads the order..The Court opined that there is no merit in the challenge either to the repealing act or to the executive decision of in-principle disinvestment..Advocate Ramesh Ramamurthy appeared for PIL petitioners challenging the policy decision for being arbitrary and violating rights under Article 14 of the Constitution..The Court opined that, in the present case, there was no want of legislative competence and that the petitioners could not show any breach of fundamental right.."No legislative enactment can be challenged either on the ground of undesirability or non-application of mind. The only available challenges to an enactment by a legislature are on the grounds of vires of the enactment, that is to say, lack of legislative competence on the part of the legislature, and violation of a fundamental right."reads the order..The Court added that the executive decision of the Union to disinvest was a measure of socio-economic reform and a matter of economic policy of the incumbent Government. Further, it was observed,."The decision to disinvest (as of now only at an “in-principle” stage), has already undergone an elaborate process of consideration at the hands of experts and key Government functionaries."Bombay High Court.Finding no merit in all four petitions, the Court dismissed the same..[Read judgment here]