The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a petition seeking mandatory disclosure of the exact ethanol percentage in petrol at fuel stations, including on dispensing nozzles and customer bills. The Court, however, allowed the petitioner to approach the concerned High Court with his grievances.
A bench of Justice M M Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B Varale dismissed the petition filed by Narendra Kumar Goswami, who had sought directions to the Centre and other authorities for a uniform ethanol-content disclosure mechanism across petrol pumps.
The Court declined to issue any order or direction after hearing the submissions and finding no merit in the petition.
Consumer’s Right To Know Raised Before Court
During the hearing, Goswami contended that consumers were entitled to know the composition of the fuel they purchased. Referring to petrol receipts, he submitted that they did not disclose the ethanol content of the fuel.
Attorney General R Venkatramani, appearing for the Union of India, opposed the petition and questioned the petitioner’s demand that the Central Government be made answerable to him on the issue.
Disclosure On Nozzles And Fuel Bills Sought
Goswami had asked the Supreme Court to direct the Centre and other respondents to instruct all Oil Marketing Companies to prominently display the exact percentage of ethanol in petrol at every fuel station and on each dispensing nozzle. The information, according to the petition, should also be displayed in the local language.
The plea further sought a requirement that every fuel bill or invoice specify the ethanol content of the petrol sold to the consumer.
It also asked for directions requiring Oil Marketing Companies to publish outlet-wise ethanol percentages on their official websites and mobile applications and make the information publicly searchable while the petition remained pending.
Vehicle Compatibility Advisory Also Sought
Apart from labelling requirements, the petitioner sought a provisional vehicle-compatibility advisory based on available data so that consumers could ascertain whether E20 petrol was suitable for their particular vehicles.
The petition also sought protection for consumers over warranty, insurance and service entitlements during the transition. It urged that, until a transparent transition framework and compatibility-disclosure mechanism was put in place, consumers should not face adverse consequences solely for using E20 fuel where a reasonably available alternative was absent.
The Supreme Court ultimately declined to entertain the petition while granting Goswami liberty to raise his grievances before the concerned High Court.
